Kant and Socrates

incorruptity is generally defined as the rightness or wrongness of an action or conduct establish on an agreed standard or measure of ethical norms. This argues a society where there is no dissenting voice, which in reality is not true. ethnic subjectivism promotes tolerance, save not for all, as primalist thought excludes any deviation from their bring downd clean values (Jowett, 2000). Society, on the other hand, is a group of individuals that pct a common system of beliefs, intent and thought. Moral standards argon required so that a stcapable society may exist however, the dilemma in ethics theory is how the ethical motive within a society is formed (Vlastos, 1991). Morality and society, app atomic number 18ntly, is in a state of flux while ethics theorists adjudicate to come up with an adequate ethical formula to qualify what is right and wrong based on all cultural, social, political and religious realities.The notion of faith 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 chastely wrong (Nikolaos, 2005). Among the most noted for their philosophical studies regarding deterrent exampleity and ethics are Socrates and Immanuel Kant. Both point out that the definition of what is evil depends on culture and suffer and motivations of the individual and society. Their definition of morality discusses not only the concept itself but besides its implications to mans existence (Kants Moral Philosophy, 2007). Thus, understanding what is moral is not to be considered as an intellectual discourse alone but is an endeavor 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 believe in the need to explain his actions or thoughts and instead questioned others exhaustively. Socrates regard for Sparta, his standstill with the Thirty Tyrants and his own personal philosophical stance was used by his enemies for the accusation of treason against the state (Vlastos, 1991). At the eon of the streak, which led to his subsequent conclusion by hemlock, there was not any element in Greek society that would represent modern day district 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 faux pass were brought to trial 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. There is also a presumption of guilt alternatively than that of innocence. In Platos recollections of the trial, he points out that the prosecution, the restored democrats, deliberately made assumptions contextually of Socrates teachings and philosophies (Jowett, 2000).Plato also recognizes that S ocrates defense was one that seemed to have ultimately given the jury the behest to experience him criminal. His defense 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 A pasts in high regard, his philosophical speeches during his lifetime were sufficiently vague that his detractors easily could manipulate to appear the opposite (Nikolaos, 2005).Socrates on MoralityUnlike traditional Sophistic views on the purpose of life which focused on public life or works, Socrates viewed the moral excellence of the soul or sexual morality as paramount. He considered morality as not just limited to internal aspects or characteristics of an individual but extended its definition into the public life of the individual. One of the key virtues fit in to Socrates is knowledge. Socrates proposed that rhetorical studies should consider morality practically rather than for the purpose of public s ervice alone.According to Socrates, the lack of knowledge leads to the absence of virtue. Following this viewpoint, understanding what is moral is censorious 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 difference morally as the means to create value out of life a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying 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 blue (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 can 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 cease 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 satire on the Athenian society and fifty-fifty his statements 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 mockery of a trial, Socrates replied that since he chose to live in Athens, he must gesture to its laws regardless 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 difficult to evaluate. Thus, Socrates may in concomitant be making a statement as to the justice of the trial if not to its legality. realiseing 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 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 veto 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 correct action universally (Kants Moral Philosophy, 2007). aftermath Socrates action through Kants Moral Philosophy, there are arguments both to support the morality of Socrates act ions. The challenge is in deciphering Socrates intentions and purpose which can sometime analyze 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 questioning the state and its leaders is to emphasize 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 will consider Socrates moral because he in facts teaches other virtue by his philosophical studies. As stated 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 during 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. musical accompaniment 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 according 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 citizenry 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 lightly 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 temperament 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 stated 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 two philosophies on morality is that Kants definition is so absolute and leaves very little 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 divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you attend me examining myse lf 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 to the full rational such as those who are mentally incapacitated or limited because of retardation or any other psychological condition (Kants Moral Philosophy, 2007). Though moral autonomy does exist in both perspectives, Kants moral philosophy leaves less flexibility towards its definition because of its requirement of universality.It should be kept in mind that the setting of the two works is distinctly different. In the case of Socrates, the motivation and the consequences are given as much sizeableness 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 existence of the soul, and divinities by stating that, Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in s pirits 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 immorality is based on injustice resulting form the action. Thus the dilemma of immorality in the occasion 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 temperament 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=