Sydney Smith 
Denysha Taylor Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy can be related to the category of Creation or Fall. Here I want to discuss about Creation, about “who are we” and “what we ought to do”. To understand his moral philosophy, it is important to know Kant’s view of human being. He thinks we are beings who are capable of reasons and choosing freely. Rational capacity separates us from animals. Kant’s analysis of moral behavior is based on reason and free will: “there is reason fro acting morally and if that reason if freely chosen, moral behavior results.” In his opinion, to choose or act freely is to act according to a law that is not imposed on us, not like the laws of nature or laws that involve personal needs. For Kant, Such a law comes from reason, and categorical imperative is a command of reason
According to Kant, categorical imperative is the supreme principle that governs our moral behavior, from which all moral principles could be derived. There are three formulations of the categorical imperative. The textbook describes the formulation of universal law, which is “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” Kant took the maxim “lying under certain circumstances is justified” and “always tells the truth” as examples. When we universalize the first maxim-everyone one can tell lies, distrust will grow on. Therefore, the result is terrible and the Maxim doesn’t correspond with the categorical imperative. However, when the second maxim is made to a universal moral law-everyone always tells the truth, trust will be built. So the result is good and the Maxim corresponds with the categorical imperative. From universalization, we can know lying is wrong and telling the truth is right. I do not completely agree with the examples, for there are white lies that may be harmless and in reality, always telling the truth may not lead to trust and harmony. But the main point of universal moral law is to test whether the reason for the behavior is independent of personal needs and the result that people will be free and equal due to categorical imperative is ideal.
Savannah Wesley
8:44 pm, 10.05.13
I enjoyed this post because I personally wrote about Kant representing the Fall. Although I had seen some aspects of Creation in his philosophy, I was not able to expound on it as you have in your post. Thank you for helping me comprehend Kant’s connection to Creation, it has been nagging at me since writing my post last night!
Levi Ritchie
9:21 pm, 10.06.13
It’s funny how Kant’s categorical imperative feels similar to wearing a WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) bracelet. It implies, at least on the surface, that the right thing to do is consistent across all situations, cultures, and times. Most people, from my experience, disagree with this view, even if it takes a bit of conversation before they realize it.
When I first heard about these ideas, it seemed to me like every popular system of ethics was just a roundabout way of being utilitarian. “Whatever is eventually best for the most people is the right thing to do, BUT X or Y is the best way to go about doing that.” Now I understand there is an important ideological difference between the two. One strives to something strictly human, and ideas like that of Kant reach beyond raw pleasure and into an ideological future, even though it’s one that he can’t prove will ever happen.
Matt McMahon
7:05 pm, 10.07.13
I really like the idea of the categorical imperative, while I agree with Levi and you that it is hard to truly live it out because it seems like there are so many exceptions but even so I feel like the theory seems valid in a lot of ways.