Kant's Ethics PDF

Kant’s Ethics Ethical Framework: Kant's philosophy revolves around the Kant propounds a moral law grounded in concept of Transcendental Critique, which pure practical reason. The Categorical seeks to assess the legitimacy of pure Imperative serv...

Kant’s Ethics Ethical Framework: Kant's philosophy revolves around the Kant propounds a moral law grounded in concept of Transcendental Critique, which pure practical reason. The Categorical seeks to assess the legitimacy of pure Imperative serves as a central principle, reason's applications to various domains, requiring that actions could serve as a primarily metaphysics, ethics, and universal law applicable to all rational aesthetics. This critique differentiates beings. Each moral action must have the between legitimate and illegitimate uses of potential to be universalized without reason, emphasizing the necessity of contradiction. grounding metaphysical inquiries in experience. Morality is understood as a duty, not contingent on personal inclinations or the Transcendental Critique: pursuit of happiness. The ultimate moral The essential question is to identify the goal (summum bonum) is a community conditions of possibility for knowledge and where virtue is rewarded with happiness. moral action. Transcendental is understood as those conditions that make experience Antinomies of Reason: or knowledge possible, thus informing our Kant discusses several conflicting understanding of causality, space, and time. conclusions derived from reason, illustrating how pure reason generates contradictions, Kant introduced the Copernican Revolution particularly concerning freedom, the in philosophy, suggesting that rather than existence of God, and the nature of the the mind passively absorbing data, it universe. actively organizes sensory information to produce coherent experiences. Aesthetic Judgments: In aesthetics, Kant posits that beauty is not Synthetic A Priori Knowledge: merely subjectively experienced but Kant argues that certain types of knowledge involves the faculties of imagination and (synthetic a priori) predate experience and understanding that aspire towards a are necessary to make sense of the world. universality of taste. However, he restricts These include fundamental truths such as aesthetic inquiry to judgments that can be causality ("every event has a cause") that universally applied. underlie our understanding of the empirical Conclusion: realm. Kant's approach combines epistemological rigor with ethical commitment, advocating Limits of Reason: for a significant distinction between what Kant critiques metaphysics for overstepping can be known and what should be hoped its bounds by applying concepts of reason for, reinforcing the limits of human beyond sensory experience, leading to knowledge in metaphysical matters while speculative questions about existence, God, allowing space for faith and morality. and immortality that cannot be reliably known or answered through pure reason. Overall, Kant's transcendental critique lays a foundation for a systematic philosophical inquiry into the principles of knowledge, ethics, and aesthetics, establishing We are acting in accordance with a good definitive boundaries for reason’s principle but also for the sake of acting for application in human understanding and that principle. experience. There is a difference between acting for Necessary Conditions duty and acting for conformity. You need to A necessary condition is something that be internally motivated rather than doing must be true for a certain statement to hold what looks like a good moral action in our true. In other words, if a necessary condition calculated self-interest. is not met, the statement cannot be true. It does not guarantee the truth of the Do you choose not to tell a lie because it is statement on its own, but it is essential for it. wrong or because you fear punishment? For instance, having oxygen is a necessary “The pursuit of Justice is good for oneself as condition for fire; without oxygen, there it leads to the mastery of one’s own being. It cannot be fire, but having oxygen alone is freedom to live by your own standards. does not ensure there will be fire. The pursuit is good for the collective as it permits the completion of function.” Sufficient Conditions On the other hand, a sufficient condition is Thus we can say then that it is not the act something that, if true, guarantees the truth itself that makes it good but the of a certain statement. If a sufficient maxim/principle that motivates it. That alone condition is met, the statement must be is sufficient to make one act in moral true. For example, being a square is a adherence. sufficient condition for being a rectangle; every square is a rectangle, but not every What then are the necessary conditions for rectangle is a square. Thus, while a an act to be moral? sufficient condition guarantees the outcome, it is not the only way to achieve that outcome. Two Paths: 1. Transcendental Conditions of the What are the necessary conditions for an Possibility of a Genuine Moral Act act of genuine moral acts that can take a. What pure practical reason place? can tell us as regards to what we ought to do Critique of Practical Reason 2. What practical reason must presuppose/postulate, in absence of Acting Out of Duty possibility of metaphysical Our motivations must be our sense of duty - knowledge duty to the moral law. Duty to a good a. Critique the limits of pure principle, to a good maxim. reason as regard to the presuppositions we need  3. Acting out of duty presupposes that How can we talk about agency if we can’t we are free even presuppose our freedom? Freedom Necessary Morality Pure Reason as Ruling Out Conditions We need freedom to actually be moral. If for Morality or Moral Order not, nobody would be responsible for their 1. Freedom actions. a. Condition of moral action denied by Antinomy of Human freedom is not just freedom from causality constraints. Freedom from must also be 2. God complemented by a Freedom for or a a. Lies beyond institutions Freedom to. b. By antimony of causality, God would offer some hope Freedom for is a freely chosen end or goal of morality being somehow that then places obligations for us. central to the world 3. Immortality If I decide to become a lawyer, I ought to go a. What lies beyond sensory to law school to get my Juris Doctor then experience pass the BAR exam. b. Speculation c. Any hope of good deeds Conditional Obligation being rewarded does not Having an obligation because we freely seem likely chose it is a function of realizing freedom, rather than to keep us constrained. Pure reason’s limitations prohibit any rational demonstration of God, Freedom, We can choose to let the obligation go when and immortality. It is off-the-table for Kant. I decide to give up on becoming a lawyer. Pure Reason vs Practical Reason Sense of Moral Freedom Practical Reason is the reason that governs Freedom becomes apparent to us when we how we act, not what we can know. It is grasp something we ought to do, for we knowing when double-standards are wrong. must recognize that even if we don’t actually do it, we can actually do it. What is Left of Freedom? Pure reason expects to find a chain of If we are asked to bear false witness that causes that leads back indefinitely, since might have an innocent man jailed, we can there can be no event that is caused by choose to bear false witness and receive a some prior event. hefty sum in return or choose not to and preserve our integrity. The Two Hypotheses 1. Infinite regression on the basis that If you can recognize an obligation and the every event has a cause choice makes a difference, that is indicative 2. There is a self-caused cause of freedom. We are then free to follow a moral, a The necessary condition of the body makes principle, and be motivated by it. A fortiori human life possible but limits it to a life (moral dilemma), reveals our freedom to us. span. Postulate of Moral Freedom When athletes break records, it doesn’t A theoretical proposition, though one not mean there are no limits, the limits are demonstrable as such, insofar as it is simply on the capacity. attached inseparably to a priori unconditionally valid practical law. The Can Limits be Exceeded? supreme duty, is a categorical imperative. The pure concept of causality is a priori for Kant. We impose it as an inference since we can see and know when a billiard ball Critique of Pure Reason: Limitations of hits another, it will cause the other to move. Metaphysics; Speculative Ladders to The Heavens. Can we then use reason outside of intuition and sensory experience? When reason is Transcendental Critique: From Powers to separated what makes it valid? Limits. By knowing the enabling conditions for the Can we use reason to answer questions object (under investigation) we will know about an original cause of all things? It is where the limits lie. I.e. If I know the outside of our sensory experience. anatomy and muscular physiology of the human body, I know what physical feats it is Conditions of the Epistemic/Knowing capable of and what are its limits. Subject Raw data has to be organized, and imbued Experience/Knowledge requires as its with sense, for experience to be what it is. A conditions of possibility are sensory painting zoomed in to the finest details experience and reason. might not make sense. But with our ability to Concepts without intuition (space and time) make sense of what we perceive, we can are empty, intuitions without concepts, are make a coherent picture. blind. They are interdependent. Our rational capacities have to be brought to the raw sensory data for something Thought Experiment intelligible to arise. If your starting ingredients are pasta, tomatoes, and pork, and your only method When we pose questions that transcend the of cooking is a gas stove, you can’t possibility of sensory experience, it is the conclude that you can make a chocolate same as trying to paint without paint, colors, cake. or initial impressions. To know the positive condition of something With no capacity for perception, everything will also let you know the limits of possibility. would be a blur. No concepts, no knowledge. No blurry impression, no intuition, no knowledge. The Questions Overlooked by there can be no event that is not itself Speculative Metaphysicians caused by some prior event. Metaphysicians have employed reason to build a speculative system of reality or Reasoning is valid within the phenomenal being, but systems have tended to realms and in what it can be applied to contradict one another without any criterion sensory experience. for what is correct. Think of finding the causes of a heart attack. Metaphysics and philosophy have Doctors know a heart attack comes from a overlooked the pivotal question: what is buildup of fat and cholesterol, is it because pure reason capable of? of their diet, exercise, or industry? We have failed to perform the task of This leads to an infinite regression which employing reason in determining the limits is interminable and illogical. So reason of reason. seems to posit a prime mover or a self-caused cause to avoid infinite Geometry: The Concordance of Reason regression. and Pure Intuition It is reason brought to bear our pure a priori But this is unsatisfactory because it intuitions of space and time. Geometry is contradicts the idea that something must fully defined as they are represented. Space precede an event. This is an antimony of and time are synthetic a priori knowledge. reason. We all know that a straight line is the Antimony of Reason shortest distance between two points Antimonies are conflicting statements both of which appear to be validated by reason The Originary Function of Reason The primary function of reason is meant to Two antagonistic conclusions to which work with intuition, to make sense of our reason leads that equally as inevitable, but experiences. It is not the rational pursuit of equally as irrational philosophical questions, it is to make the Humans have a limited capacity to sensory world intelligible. understand the incomprehensible of infinity. The reason this happens is because we are We naturally want to bring pure reason to applying reason to something that is not bear on questions beyond our sensory sensory. experience but we don't have the requisite sensory experience on which we can bring Without sensory experience, there is no pure reason to bear. domain that sets our playing field. Reason without sensory data is illegitimate. Causality and The Question of an Critique of Practical Reason: Hoped for Original Prime Mover Ladders to the Heavens of a Just Moral Pure Reason expects to find a chain of Order causes that leads back indefinitely since Remaining Questions of Philosophy The question then becomes, what are the 1. What ought I do? necessary conditions? 2. What might I hope for? Kant believes that Christianity is the most Religions and Moral World Order practical and rational religion in terms of Religions’ construction of meaning in the moral teachings - “Do unto others as you world seems predicated on some sort of just would do unto them. Religion lies in the moral order. limits of mere reason but religious faith in God, immortality lies beyond pure Goodness ≠ Happiness reason. If I save a drowning man to be rewarded which is for my self-interest, it not an act of *Nietzche believes that the idea that the just moral worth. Saving them for the sake of and unjust get what they deserve after their saving them unconditionally has moral time in Chrisitianity is a psychological worth. copium for the meek. An act of moral worth can then be Summum Bonum compromised by the pursuit of one’s “The Highest Good” is the object or goal of happiness. pure practical reason. A moral philosophy should provide the It is an unconditional good that other goods framework for a morally just universe in are dependent on. Happiness on the other which we can believe in. hand is conditional but it is still a natural end - so it cannot be ignored. Christianity appears to allow for this: the reward for living a doos life lies in Morality Ethics everlasting happiness in heaven. What one should How can one lead a do. good and happy Desire to Construct a Framework for life? Belief in a Morally just Desire Goodwill an Unconditional Good Our rational capacity lacks the capacity to Goodwill is the willingness to submit my will attain knowledge of any just world order. to a good principle and is categorically, We cannot realize or conceptualize it but we unqualifiedly, good even if my actions cause can motivare ourselves to realize it. unintended harm. I can be motivated to return the wallet a Scenario: person drops not because I am afraid of Two soldiers have the opportunity to save being caught but because I am duty-bound. lives, they will do all they can even if they endanger their own. It is voluntary and Pure practical reason or moral courageous. They are both motivated by the philosophy is insufficient as a means to same principle. inspire people to lead moral lives however. One soldier rescues the children, the other Acting on Principle as the key to Kant’s dies in action trying to do so. Deontological Ethics: Laying the ground for the Categorical Imperative Which soldier’s act is more moral? Return to normative transcendental This is a false question. Success or failure questions of ethics is completely irrelevant. If goodwill is presupposed and motivations are the same, Necessary conditions of possibility of an act then they are both equally moral. of moral worth. Everything now to be priori demonstrable, not a postulate Goodwill is absolutely good and What must we do to live a moral life ? categorically good. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals Happiness is a Conditional Good Our natural end happiness can be derived Working towards: Categorical Imperative from that of evil or failing to do our moral 1. Kant’s first formulation of the duty. Happiness therefore is a conditional Categorical Imperative: non- good. contradictory universalisation of one’s principle This contrasts with Aristotle’s way of understanding happiness as the the good of 2. Never reducing a person to a mere all goods or the ultimate end. means to your own personal end s Happiness is a natural end - I am born and What makes the act one of moral worth given to be concerned with my own happiness - but it must be integrated within Not morality or ethics. - Purpose/end consequence - act(cause of action taken) Aristotle assumes happiness already is - Acting merely in “conformity” integrated, but Kant says it is not. - Emotions motivating act (sympathy) - Character (virtuous) or disposition of Happiness Deserved by the Good and person acting Virtuous - Motivation (self interest) We sense happiness to be deserved only to What does it take the extent that we merit of being good. It is - Submitting to one’s will to a good an ideal and is in exact proportion to principle morality. - Setting aside one’s personal desires/ preferences/ natural ends But the real world will conflict with that - The principle being alone sufficiently notion with any happy people who exploit motivating me to act others. Categorical imperative: helps us distinguish the good from the bad principle Pure Practical Reason (PPR) A priori, universal, necessary moral truth Goodwill unconditionally good; ie only if principled Kant thinks much is demonstrable a priori Knowing this as a “necessary” truth Not on the condition that - Produce good consequences Leads to the categorical imperative: the - Springs from a vague general well absolute, unconditioned principle of all meaningness principles, duty of all duties - Performed by someone of good character Wants to raise our moral knowledge - about - Can be unconditionally good if the what we ought to do rather than what is the intentions is an intent to act out of case - to the level where we are “in duty to a good principle possession of necessary universal truths” Goodwill is not a relative Good Critique and the court of reason (age of enlightenment) Says that the goodwill is the sole - Age in which everything “must be unconditional good, as it is not relative to submitted to reason” - to critique something else(intentions, consequences) Critique “Goodwill” is not a benevolent, kindly - Every claim, dispute, moral, law is disposition to others, not as in “goodwill to subjected to the test of rationality all men” Kant doesn’t mean it to be and/or scientific experimentation “well-intentioned” or “to mean well” No longer to the church, tradition, to faith, Has to do with intention, but the intention custom, and superstition with regard to principles and maxims. To uphold one's moral duty. Goodwill is the sole of unconditional good, It is good in itself - Not impugned by actual What the goodwill is more positively consequences/outcomes - Seems to have to do with The goodwill is the will….. intentions…different to regular - To let what I know to be a good motivation principle determine my action, - Goodwill for kant is the will to be rather than my self interest acting in accordance with a good maxim/principle A person of good will is a principled person: - Neither depends on anything else - They submit their will to the good nor can be compromised by principle, to do the right thing for the anything in this goodness ex. right reason Consequences Principles are key Soldier A Soldier B - They predetermine my acts and be Lets choice/action Lets choice/action universal be decided by their be decided by their - Not making up my mind on each principle: principle: occasion. (not situational ethics) “If I have the “If I have the opportunity to opportunity to Simplistic and inaccurate is potentially rescue innocent rescue innocent misleading to say “Kant emphasizes lives, then I will do lives, then I will do intentions, and mill so at the risk of my so at the risk of my consequences/outcomes” own life.” own life.” Own Own Worth of act in maxim, not in interest/inclination interest/inclination purpose/end (self-preservation) (self-preservation) set aside set aside An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose to be attained by it Succeeds Fails Kant: But in the maxim according with which it is Both soldiers act in accordance to the decided upon same maxim and therefore are both in adherence to moral worth. Even if the It’s not on the realization of the objects of intent is not accomplished, the Principle the action behind it is what matters. The principle behind such act must be But solely on the principle of volition in free of any conditions or personal wishes. accordance with which, irrespective of all objects of the faculty of desire, the action Principle is both the purpose and the end. has been performed. Aristotle: Character is what makes acts moral So is it really moral if you do things by Soldier vs Aris Soldier second nature or doing so by Not the purpose or outcome, but the maxim principle? (soldier) Kant Aristotle Purpose, Outcome, my desires vs Individual Society Maxim/Principle Scenario: Principle Obligation A soldier is faced with the situation where they can save innocent lives. There is no Submitting one’s will to a principle implies commanding officer to order them what to obligation. do. How do they act? My principle is a predetermination of my act  The test of principle lies in abiding by I let my principle dictate my action them in ALL CASES - In advance of the relevant circumstance - Find out of we really do have a - Independently of changes in principle - whether self- interest, fear circumstance of consequences - motivating our action if “I keep my promise even if shit changes” - Or do we adhere to the principle for the sake of the principle Flexibility doesn’t exist in having principles Principles imply obligation; obligation to Our rationality and our freedom moral principle is duty; duty is duty to the moral law. Freedom from/Freedom to or for. Ability to have our actions governed by, to Kant’s a deontological ethics: ethics of duty submit to principles/ maxims is reason and freedom, is the rational will “Duty” etymologically related to debt - A duty is what I ow, something I am Vs. freedom from all constraints: “i can do obliged to give, to do whatever I feel like” “I am always in debt to my principle” Freedom in capacity to act owing to a Kantian duty is not particular, but principle. Moral or otherwise. universal, absolute duties Kant: moral worth only in acting for the - These duties aren’t particular, sake of the principle, not for a later benefit. contingent duties, (waiters, police officers) Not that Kant does not think it's good to - Its instead the duty as a rational develop our characters - we have a duty to being(which don’t end) to adhere to do so good principles: it’s my duty to the moral law But his question a narrow, strict one: Conditions of possibility of act of moral - If there are unequivocally good worth. principles, then as a rational being that can recognize them ,I am duty- bound to them Act Principle How we act betrays principles I hold(or lack of) ; we sometimes discover our principles only when we fail to live up to them Kant’s meta-ethics of action are not so easily rejected…….  Particular, Universal, contingent, absolute, Shopkeeper Acting Out of Duty conditional duties unconditional, Acting out of duty is necessary to the act of duties moral worth. Obligation upon me Obligation upon me insofar as I hold insofar as I am a some particular rational human position being Applies to only Applies to some people everyone Applies at certain Applies at all times times, not at others Always and only Possibly moral, ethical and moral possibly not “I have the duty Our motivation is to submit our will to the “If I want to…. I simply because I good principle for the sake of the good have to…… am a rational principle. being” It must come internally and not influenced Moral law externally. A shopkeeper must treat all Moral duty that applies to everyone all the customers equally not because not doing so time had the form of a law: an obligation will tarnish their reputation. That is valid for all human beings conformity. Law: something that is absolute Rather, they do so because it is a good - Law of thought (logic) principle, a good maxim that is - Law of nature (physics) unconditional. Moral law as a law for free beings (moral I will treat others well not because of karma law) - external, universal binding command, but because it is my duty as a rational but not always followed being. Kant wants a moral law that is absolute, Admixture of Motivations absolutely binding, even if we are not free Kant recognizes that there can be an to adhere to it adixture of motivations for a myriad of reasons. Categorical imperative- a law with the rational being has the duty to submit or We are sometimes motivated by both subject his will. The great elusive prize for principle and self-interest. If I go out to save moral philosophy, to defeat relativism. three innocent kids from drowning, I do it because it’s the right thing to do and maybe because my brother is one of said kids. That said, the good principle must be 2. Universalize the Maxim sufficient on its own for us to follow it. It Now that you have the principle, imagine a does not have to exclusively be but world in which everyone did the same sufficiently be. thing. Discernment Method We can then re-format the question by It is difficult if not impossible to know starting with “What if everyone did ___” other’s motivating principles, and even to know our own. Scenario 1 Scenario 2 In the face of psychological problem of Whenever anybody Whenever anybody analyzing people’s motivation, perhaps we is so poor that they needs ready cash, can start with understanding what would cannot feed their they make a false the condition be for an act to be of moral promise to obtain child, they make a money. worth. false promise to obtain money. Does the action conform to the categorical imperative? 3. Dismiss the Actual Consequences We are Kantians right now, not Utilitarians. 1st Formulation of the Categorical Imperative So any consequences for stakeholders Steps to Formulating a Maxim: like the lender can include the lender being deceived or upset or in financial jeopardy - 1. Formulate the Maxim ignore these first! Formulation must reflect situation accurately: to take into account all factors Consequences for Institutions in the situation. Context, action, outcomes The institution as a whole and not must be known. individuals. This should also be ignored. Ex: If the institution of lending loses trust in the Scenario 1 Scenario 2 reliability of borrowers to pay back, it would cause a collapse in the system. If I am ever so poor Whenever I need that I cannot feed ready cash, I will make a false If you knock the first domino over, in my child, I will promise to obtain principle, the others will fall. You let one make a false money. false promise off the hook, you let all false promise to obtain promises off the hook. money. But in reality, you can’t fully gauge what the The two scenarios have the same action severity of those consequences. They are and outcome but different contexts. The conditional and contingent - consequences context here is the principle. are only possible, not fact or fate. 4. Determine the Logical Consequences Am I in contradiction with myself? We will not look at the possible consequences but the logical We have a repugnance for consequences which are whether it can be double-standards. For Kant that is how we coherently willed - if I can do said action know there is logical inconsistency - no and allow others to the same action to need to consult experience. me. Inflexible Absolutism You need to ask if there is a contradiction Consequences, even when unjust cannot between the principle and its universality. be taken into account, and so, perhaps, Kantianism has a glaring weakness. Scenario 1 Scenario 2 If you are holding a Jewish refugee and a If I am ever so poor Whenever I need Nazi knocks on your door asking if there is a that I cannot feed ready cash, I will Jew inside, the moral act for Kant would be my child, I will steal a laptop. to choose honesty and give up the Jewish make a false survivor. promise to obtain money. 2nd Formulation Whenever anybody Whenever anybody “Act so that you treat humanity, whether is so poor that they needs ready cash, in your own person or that of another, cannot feed their they will steal a always as an end and never as merely a laptop. child, they make a means.” false promise to obtain money. Our actions must always have this quality of being done for the sake of other people; When we envisage the universalization and they must also be included in the ends of boomerang back to us, do unto others the means. It cannot be guided solely by what you wish to be done unto you, is it consistency, as in the 1st Formulation. The coherent? 2nd formulation emphasizes the rational being – it is not because they have While you may be able to say or amenable emotions or feel pain; thus, it excludes to a dog-eats-dog world where stealing animals. each other’s property is just the name-of-the-game, that must be “Now I say that the human being and in disingenuous. You can’t say with 100% general every rational being exists as an certainty that everybody wants to will end in itself, not merely as a means to be someone to steal their laptop. It is not used by this or that will at its discretion; coherent. instead he must in all his actions, whether directed to himself or also to other rational It makes no sense to avail of institutional beings, always be regarded at the same rights and protection while not adhering to time as an end.” its duties or conventions. This is to say, then, that when formulating a someone stealing from me for that maxim, for example, it would be wrong to purpose make a false promise in order to obtain money, as you end up using others as the While intuition perhaps tells us innocent means, rather than them being a part of the lives outweigh being truthful to a end result. genocidal fascist regime - that the answer here is obvious - Kant formulates no The main principle that should govern our consistent way of weighing up which maxims, then, is to treat each other as principle more important ends. And such examples seem to lead his theory, when conceived as absolutist, The 2nd formulation can thus be to absurdity: must not lie whatever the understood as a categorical imperative circumstance (if we hold to simple formulation that takes the human into maxims) account, “to find end lying in others as a Strength of Kantianism in provision of whole.” absolute principles (refuting relativism) , but at once seems to be it weakness when flexibility to extreme circumstances Criticisms of Kant requires it (Note: from a Utilitarian perspective and Consequentialist perspective) Utilitarianism does seem to provide a way for weighing up: which will lead to the greatest happiness, or the least Problem of Consequences/outcomes suffering Outcome and what you decide to do separable 2nd formulation: towards saving people If integrated into the principle, the whole Seems to be a point of convergence with idea of principle being absolute, non Mill/Utilitarianism conditional is compromised - Common ground of other people’s happiness being something I must An ethics of principle begins - with take into account conditional formulations - to become a situational ethics (new maxim for every Perhapes demonstrates immorality of situation) giving up the Jews to the Nazis Problems when two duties, 2 principles Inconsistencies between 1st and 2nd come into conflict, with one another formulation - Lying and bad consequence - Not stealing as failing to bring about The emphasis (from principle to other good consequences, etc. people) would lead to inconsistencies Coherence test can resolve the “stealing to 1st - emphasis falls on principal re telling feed one’s child case” ; I would accept truth, never lying 2nd - emphasis on not treating others as means, or ensuring they are not reduced to such means Prescribes both: don’t lie; always attempt to save people - However this would be a conflict between the 2 No attempt to address such ethical dilemmas Antinomies of pure practical reason lie in ethical dilemmas, and not so much in the questions Kant sought to resolve through the postulates of freedom ,God and immortality.