QUESTION SIX

6. In what ways is Kant similiar to Kierkegaard? And, more importantly, in what ways is he different? Why does Kierkegaard critique Kant's duty based morality. Make sure you explain each philospher's view of ethics in depth here (separate sections) and offer specifics like Kant's categorical imperative and Kierkegaard three stages, etc.

kant's ethical theory stems from going against the idea of skepticism. he claims that everyone is obliged to some duty, and only in carrying out the duty can a person be moral. kant's theory also relies highly on reasoning, for he claims that in reasoning can be found the grounds to certainty. these reasonings, kant said, have to be a priori, that is, does not require experience to prove true. using reasoning, kant develops the categorical imperative, that is, categories that one can use to test one's action to determine whether it is moral or not. in general, kant's categorical imperative says that an action is only moral and should be done if one can apply the moral principle behind such action to be true for everyone else. principles that "survive" this test are the ones that form a person's duty, to which that person is obliged.

kierkegaard's ethical theory is basically the reverse of descarte's "i think therefore i am." being an existentialist, kierkegaard highly regards the concept of existence and puts it before anything else in his theory. kierkegaard claims that there is three different kinds of existence, in hierarchical order: the aesthetic, ethical, and religious mode of life. the lowest of all is the aesthetic, in which one pursues pleasure and pleasure only. kierkegaard highly regards choice, and for kierkegaard, the aesthetic mode does not regard choice. the ethical mode is the mode that one reaches after one is able to change one's attitude towards making a choice. like many other philosophers, kierkegaard also claims that the choices made must be rational. however, morality is not complete before one can reach the highest mode of all, the religious. being a believer of god, kierkegaard claims that reason cannot provide moral truth, but faith can.

kierkegaard's theory does not seem similar to kant's at all, even though it is derived from kant's and uses kant's categorical imperative. essentially they ARE similar, but kierkegaard's incorporation of religious concept in his theory provides a radical extension to kant's idea. the most obvious differences between the two philosopher is, like many others, their different understanding of god. while kant mentions nothing about god in his theory, kierkegaard incorporates such concept entirely to his theory. kierkegaard's ethical mode is like kant's ethical theory in which one uses the categorical imperative to test whether one's actions are moral or not. but for kierkegaard, this is not enough. to be truly moral, one has to surpass that level and get to the religious level, for only with faith can one find moral truth. by incorporating religious aspects in his theory, derived from kant, kierkegaard brings kant's theory to a whole new level of understanding.