Kant and Socrates

Morality is generally defined as the skillfulness or wrongness of an do or conduct based on an concur standard or measure of ethical norms. This argues a corporation where there is no dissenting voice, which in reality is non true. Cultural subjectivism promotes tolerance, moreover non for all, as fundamentalist thought excludes any deviation from their ordained honorable values (Jowett, 2000). Society, on the other hand, is a group of individuals that role a common system of beliefs, intent and thought. Moral standards argon necessitate so that a stable society may come through however, the dilemma in ethics theory is how the ethics within a society is formed (Vlastos, 1991). Morality and society, app arntly, is in a state of flux time ethics theorists attempt to come up with an adequate ethical traffic pattern to qualify what is right and wrong based on all hea therefore, social, policy-making and religious realities.The nonion of morality is often taken from a cultural context yet this presumes that societies are likewise always right in their judgments, so to disagree with society is morally wrong (Nikolaos, 2005). Among the most celebrated for their philosophical studies obedienceing morality and ethics are Socrates and Im firearmuel Kant. Both point tabu that the exposition of what is evil depends on culture and experience and motivations of the individual and society. Their rendering of morality discusses not only the concept itself but also its implications to slices existence (Kants Moral Philosophy, 2007). and then, understanding what is moral is not to be considered as an intellectual discourse alone but is an tendency to understand better the world.SocratesSocrates has provided great food of thought in his studies for what he knew but more importantly because of his treatise and understanding of what he does not know. Socrates did not count in the need to explain his actions or thoughts and instead researched others ex haustively. Socrates regard for Sparta, his association with the Thirty Tyrants and his own personal philosophical stance was apply by his enemies for the accusation of treason against the state (Vlastos, 1991). At the time of the ladder, which conduct to his subsequent death by hemlock, there was not any atom in Greek society that would represent modern day territory attorney offices.At the same time jury selection also did not have the criteria that is implemented today and often represents the political dominants of the time. Civil cases were brought to running play by private individuals who often also acted as the prosecution. Thus, there was no way to determine whether there was probable cause as to accusations. in that respect is also a presumption of guilt rather than that of innocence. In Platos recollections of the run, he points out that the prosecution, the restored democrats, deliberately made assumptions contextually of Socrates teachings and philosophies (Jowe tt, 2000).Plato also recognizes that Socrates disaffirmation was one that seemed to have ultimately given the jury the behest to find him guilty. His vindication did not actually defend his actions but rather questioned the institution by which he was being tried in. though in hindsight it is obvious that he held Athens in high regard, his philosophical speeches during his disembodied spirittime were sufficiently light that his detractors easily could manipulate to appear the opposite (Nikolaos, 2005).Socrates on MoralityUnlike traditional sophistical vox populis on the purpose of lifespan which counselinged on public life or works, Socrates viewed the moral excellence of the soul or righteousness as paramount. He considered morality as not just limited to infixed aspects or characteristics of an individual but extended its definition into the public life of the individual. One of the key rights harmonize to Socrates is knowledge. Socrates proposed that rhetorical studies should consider morality lots rather than for the purpose of public service alone.According to Socrates, the lack of knowledge leads to the absence of virtue. Following this viewpoint, understanding what is moral is critical in understanding virtue which in turn is important to be able to lead a moral life. Socrates describes these efforts at gaingin knowledge and thus leaving morally as the means to create value out of life a man who is right-hand(a) for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying(p) he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong acting the part of a good man or of a bad (Jowett, 2000, para. 55)The first step for this process is to understand what virtue is and what it is not. What is not moral is considered as evil an act of evil weed then be done by actions against another property causing him loss, against the person by physical harm or by treating him unjustly such as the denial of rights or freedoms. In Platos Gorgias, Socrates states that good and evil are not simultaneous, and do not step down simultaneously, implying that though good and bad contradict each other, they can not exist without the other (Jowett, 1999, lines 361-362).Many of Socrates actions may be interpreted as banter on the Athenian society and until now his arguments during his trial can not be considered as defense was rather a philosophical treatise. When Socrates was asked why he did choose to flee before the trial or after it when his friends tried to liberate him from prison despite what they believed was a scoffing of a trial, Socrates replied that since he chose to hold out in Athens, he must(prenominal) bow to its laws disregardless(prenominal) of the trial (Nikolaos, 2005). However, if one already considers the ethical or moral components into the equation, it is then that the question of justice becomes more problematic to evaluate. Thus, Socrates may in feature be making a statement as to th e justice of the trial if not to its legality. Considering the components of prosecution, defense, jury and judge alone, one can consider that the trial prescribe to all requirements for the delivery of justice.Kant on SocratesKants Moral philosophy is one of the main(prenominal) alternatives to utilitarianism which marginalizes moral humanistic virtues. Kants view on morality is essentially deontological which implies a focus on the action to be done regardless of the consequences (Kant The Moral, 2001). This implies that if a person is doing something that is right, then even if the results of his actions create a negative outcome, then he still did the right thing. There is also a prescriptive quality to Kants view the assumption is that everyone should do what is right and that it should be universally right (Wood, 2004).Thus, for an action to be considered moral, it should be within the capacity of everyone and viewed as a overcompensate action universally (Kants Moral Philo sophy, 2007). Viewing Socrates action by Kants Moral Philosophy, there are arguments twain to support the morality of Socrates actions. The challenge is in deciphering Socrates intentions and purpose which can sometime prove difficult since it is basic in and Socratic Method to question something.From Kants definition of morals in terms of the action rather than the outcome, Socrates can be considered as moral since his purpose for inquiring the state and its leaders is to punctuate the need for the knowledge virtue (Kant The Moral, 2001). According to Plato, Socrates did not question the institutions of the states but rather the ignorance behind it. Thus, Kant volition consider Socrates moral because he in facts teaches other virtue by his philosophical studies. As give tongue to by Socrates in Apology, I can give you as proofs of this, not words only, but deeds, which you value more than words, (Jowett, 2000, para. 59)Another example is Socrates lack of defense for himself d uring his trial. According to Platos Apology, the accusations against Socrates were an intimidation scheme gone badly. Rather than acceding to his detractors, Socrates chose not to give up his stands as a testament to his view of the mockery of justice that has become of the Athenian society. Supporting the Kants view of universality in the form of the law implemented in Athens,Socrates believed that he should be executed because of the fact that he has been found guilty check to Athenian law as attested by Socrates himself in his statement that to live in Athens, one must bow to its laws regardless. Even his efforts at defensce according to him are not for his sake but rather for the sake of the people I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God, or mildly reject his boon by condemning me (para. 57)Just the same time, it can be argued that Socrates actions are immoral based on Kants views (Kant The Moral, 2001). Socrates questioning the state is indeed against the Athenian law and therefore regardless his intentions for enlightenment, it is considered as sedition. The absolute nature of Kantian moral philosophies leaves no exceptions commands are imperatives without categories. Though Socrates argued that virtuous characteristics represent absence of virtue is evil, he also state that good and evil are not simultaneous, and do not cease simultaneously (Jowett, 1999, lines 342-344).Socrates, Kant and MoralityThe main source of conflict between the devil philosophies on morality is that Kants definition is so absolute and leaves very footling space more the resolution of moral dilemmas which in contrast was the focus of Socrates work if not his own life (Wood, 2004). Consider Socrates closing statement during his trialFor if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a worshipful command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious and if I say again that the great good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you collar me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living that you are still less likely to believe (Jowett, 2000, para. 63).The strict requirements for rationality then precludes morality for those who are fully rational such as those who are mentally incapacitate or limited because of retardation or any other mental condition (Kants Moral Philosophy, 2007). Though moral autonomy does exist in two perspectives, Kants moral philosophy leaves less tractableness towards its definition because of its requirement of universality.It should be kept in mind that the setting of the two works is distinctly resistent. In the case of Socrates, the motivation and the consequences are given as much importance as the act itself. When he was accused that he did spoke falsely of the gods, he used as evidence his belief in the spiritual, such as the e xistence of the soul, and divinities by stating that, Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods? (Jowett, 2000, para. 49). In the case of Kant, this will not be a valid argument sinceIn Socrates discourse, punishment of the act contravenes evil and while in Kant, contravention is from the doing what is right alone. In both instances, what is not moral is considered a reality on mans life and both definitions require affirmative action against what is not moral. To be able to do so, ones character and virtue must juxtapose what is considered what is not moral. Therefore restoration of evil done is equated with the punishment that one receives for the act.The fundamental difference in the definition between the two is that Kants moral failure is an independent act to a moral right by virtue of the lack of impact of consequences while Socrates main model of fault is based on injustice resulting form the action. Thus the dilemma of immorality in the former is an ethical one and immorality in the latter is presented as a social dilemma. Reflecting on both works, there is a realization that definitions of what is not moral may differ in many ways but all studies that focus on it have a common purpose. In understanding the nature and manner of what is not moral, a person is able to better not according it to it.ReferencesJowett, Benjamin (1999).Gorgias by Plato. Project Guttenberg. Retrieved on April 2, 2007 http//www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1672?msg=welcome_strangerJowett, Benjamin (2000). Platos Apology. Retrieved on April 2, 2007 http//classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html=