Moral philosophy plays an active role in the research path as a subject matter of careful study of human conduct, rationality, the nature of evil, and others. During the discussion, Immanuel Kant’s and Anselm of Canterbury’s works were the most prominent ones, and they contributed to the debate by bringing different angles to the same question. In Kant’s work, Allen Wood looks at the main point: freedom involves a person’s self-determination. Anselm explores the concept of moral reasoning and gives insight into the nature of ethical dilemmas. Wood’s place emphasizes the item of explanation, and rationality is compensated by Anselm’s view, which is unique and provides a fantastic concept to understand the problem of moral responsibility and the frame of will.This essay will not only look at how Kant’s and Anselm’s ideas interact with each other, but it will also look at how they can be used to solve modern ethical problems, like worries about digital privacy and the morality of AI. The goal of this study is to connect theoretical research with real-world use. This method aims to show how their philosophical views can help us understand morals and the causes of evil in new ways.
With Anselm’s rationality, also known as the rationality behind failures to self-determine according to the moral law, we have gained a complex point of view of ethical thinking and choice. However, he asserts that even if morality is objectively true, the non-conformist in a rational argument still has a reasonable basis. Anselm’s perspective confronts and counters our tendency to see moral fallacies as nothing more than irrationalities. He might say that a person, even when committed to moral commands, could have reasons for varied from them. They might be good, but they are not enough to defeat her urges to deviate from her moral ideals.Because of this understanding, we want to look into how Anselm’s ideas can be used to understand and deal with the morally complicated problems that society faces today. One example is how hard it is to find a balance in the digital age between the freedom of free speech and the need to keep people safe online.
This surely helps the person to comprehend Kant’s assumption that the origin of evil is rational. As Kant posits, “Every evil action must be so considered, whenever we seek its rational origin as if the human being had fallen into it directly from the state of innocence” (Kant 86).Kant’s point of view makes us consider the cultural and psychological influences that might make bad behavior acceptable or welcome in today’s world. The preceding instances show the importance of a good education that can adapt to today’s problems.
The Difference between Wood and Anselm only comes up in their Explanations of the Reason for the failure by self-determination of the moral law. However, while Wood criticizes such failures in reason from the beginning, Anselm works into a more moderate framework that helps understand the complexity of moral decision-making.These differences can teach us much about how moral education has changed. It suggests that we move toward methods that acknowledge how complicated moral thinking is and how many things affect making moral choices.
Anselm’s focus on the structure of the will and its role in moral decision-making offers a distinctive perspective on the issue of moral evil. Through analyzing human freedom and rationality, Anselm gave some essential hints that moral dilemmas and the essence of evil are not simple things at all. His way says that to comprehend moral evil fully, one needs to look more closely at why people break moral law. In his logical analysis of criminal behavior, Kant says that the roots of evil point towards logic as the foundation of evil. Although freedom, reason, and accountability are all essential parts of moral thinking, this link demonstrates how delicately these three ideas interact.
Wood divulges the historical aspects of Kant’s religious and philosophical intentions by critically examining Kant’s study on radical evil, an intrinsic part of human nature. In ‘Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason,’ Kant tried to seal the gap between Christian faith and Enlightenment morals. He used the vehicle of the Christian doctrine of sin to make explicit the idea that, in a rationalistic sense, justification and atonement are concepts that can go side by side, considering a moral philosophy grounded on the autonomy of reason. Kant’s assertion that “It is a peculiarity of Christian morality to represent the moral good as differing from the moral evil, not as heaven from the earth, but as heaven from hell” (Kant 103) encapsulates his endeavor to reconcile religious and moral frameworks. Wood talks about Kant’s problems when dealing with radical evil. This demonstrates how his theoretical discoveries can be used to solve current issues regarding ethics.
Kant’s attempt to design an ethical that pertains to religion to a philosophical groundwork gives a flavor of his daring to the intricate integration of philosophical, theological, and cultural phenomena, highlighting the complicated connection of reason, faith, and morality.
Anselm’s creative solution to the problem of moral evil, influenced heavily by Augustine’s philosophical concepts of free will and freedom from bondage, laid a foundation echoed by Kant’s rational quest to discover the origin of evil. Anselm’s stress on the structure of the will and its ability to impose moral or rational self-constraint echoes Kant’s concern for the autonomy of reason and the freedom of the will. “A rational being must always regard himself as lawgiving in a kingdom of ends possible through freedom of the will” (Kant 83). The similarities between these approaches show that they both try to understand the complicated nature of the thoughts and actions of humans in the framework of moral debate. When we look closely at Anselm’s and Kant’s ideas about evil, we can find support for creating a complete account that covers the fundamental characteristics of evil, how moral judgments are made, and the complicated procedures that proceed them at all times. This study sheds light on several aspects of human freedom, responsibility, and ethics, encouraging more academic research into long-standing moral problems.
Wood’s discussion of Kant’s reflections on evil in the context of eighteenth-century Lutheran Christianity highlights the challenges and controversies surrounding Kant’s work.Wood brings up the problems Kant had when he tried to find a balance between traditional religion and the morals of the Enlightenment. It was said bad things about Kant by both religious and non-religious groups.
“The aim of Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason was to explain to an audience of Christians how their faith might be reconciled with a rational Enlightenment morality” (Anderson-Gold et al. 144). One issue that Wood notices and points out in religious contexts is Kant’s intellectual depiction of doctrines, which is strongly criticized by religious and secular communities. For Christians, Kant tried to make orthodox theology and morals palatable, whereas secular philosophers believed moral philosophy stemmed from feared superstition. Wood also believes both critics are wrong in misreading Kant by showing that evil and morality are his complex story. Kant’s ideas on evil, as seen from the present-day perspective, lead to reconsidering them from a more modern viewpoint. This reflection may actualize their applicability to the concerns of the present age.
Anselm’s point of view about the rationality of individuals’ moral breaking down centers around the reason evil comes out, which is too close to Kant’s thinking about the reasons for evil from reason. Anselm argues that man is independent enough to regulate himself. He expresses the legislations that revolve around the moral agency, revealing the procedures that can be used while examining the situations in which the man fails to follow the moral law. As Wood elucidates, “The model preserves Satan’s freedom and moral agency and presents his fall as the result of subjectively rational choices that are objectively sinful and disordered” (Wood 243).So, this shows that, in the words of Anselm, reason and immorality can live together, showing how morals and reason are connected. Putting Anselm’s idea of moral duty and Kant’s ideas about evil together gives us a bigger picture. This, in turn, makes it easier to do a more profound philosophical study of the connection between morality and evil.
In conclusion, Allen Wood follows Kant’s examination of the cause of radical evil in human nature. He provides some critical analysis of Anselm’s theories of the problem of moral evil, which combined enrich our understanding of the complicated nature of moral dilemmas and evil. By examining the ideas Kant and Anselm put forward, we can better understand how complicated the connection is between what people do and their moral choices. Arguments about freedom, reason, and right and wrong define this connection.
Besides, the philosophical thinking of C. Wood and Anselm concerning the historical background of Kant and his religious thought, alongside the attention of Anselm to the rationality of conscience and moral control of a man’s actions, add more color and richness to the philosophical debate about the nature of evil and morality. When you look at ethical dilemmas from each of these vantage points of view, you can gain a more thorough comprehension of them. This helps you see how carefully free will, logical reasoning, and responsibility work with one another.
Work Cited
Anderson-Gold, Sharon, and Pablo Muchnik, eds. Kant’s anatomy of evil. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Kant, Immanuel, and Jerome B. Schneewind. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Yale University Press, 2002.
Kant, Immanuel. Religion and rational theology. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Wood, W. (2016). Anselm of Canterbury on the fall of the Devil: the complex problem, the more complicated problem, and a new formal model of the first sin. Religious Studies, 52(2), 223-245.
write