8、康德觀點：道德義務
A categorical imperative unconditionally demands performance of an action for its own sake. It states act in such a way that the maxim of your will can always become a universal law. Each individual agent regards itself as determining, by its decision to act in a certain way; everyone, including itself, will always act according to the same general rule in the future. This expression of the moral law provides a concrete, practical method for evaluating particular human actions. Consider, for example, the case of someone who contemplates relieving a financial crisis by borrowing money from someone else, promising to repay it in the future while in fact having no intention of doing so. The maxim of this action would be that it is permissible to borrow money under false intentions if you really need it. But making this maxim into a universal law would be clearly self-defeating. The entire practice of lending money on promise presupposes honest intention to repay; if this condition were universally ignored, the false promises would never be effective as methods of borrowing.
Since the universalized maxim is contradictory in and of itself, no one could want it to be law, and Kant concluded that we have a perfect duty not to act in this manner. Kant supposed that moral obligations arise even when other people are not involved. For example, killing yourself whenever you feel like it could never be a moral rule. It could not be universalizable because everyone would be dead. Since it would be contradictory to universalize the maxim of taking one’s own life if it promises more misery than satisfaction, we have a duty to ourselves not to commit suicide. Kant offered another categorical imperative stating, act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of the others, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. This places more emphasis on the unique value of human life as deserving of our ultimate moral respect.
9、康德觀點：經驗主義思想
Kant does make arguments for empirical thought in his The Postulates of Empirical Thought Section of the book Critique of Pure Reason, but his questions of an event “What became of that?” and “What brought that about?” fail to argue concisely about real and logical possibilities. Because of his lack of definite statement, Kant fails to prove through his empirical thought arguments that empirical thought or action can be universal. Kant followed his book, Critique of Pure Reason, with Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in which he argues at length on moral judgment, practical reasoning and the like. Without having read the book in its entirety, it seems that Kant provides example upon example on the possibility of universal ethics. People attempt to describe good based on virtuous thought. Virtuous thought supposes that a virtuous person has a fairly explicit conception of what is called happiness. Kant’s perception skews the person’s thought because each person perceives an event （whatever the event may be） differently. It is this difference in what people perceive that creates opposing viewpoints on good whether virtuous or not. Any attempt to provide a universal ethic to the community is impeded by the community itself. Not only was it an impossible task in Kant’s time, but it is still impossible today.
10、康德觀點：責任和理智是終極原則
Kant claims that only actions from duty have moral worth. In other words, actions from motives other than duty deserve no positive moral evaluation. A good will makes a good person. We have all been put on this earth to do our duty. We should do our duty just for duty alone; we should not be concerned about anything else.
Kant’s distinction between what is good merely as a means to an end and what is intrinsically good, or good in itself is as following. A good will is not good because of what it accomplishes; it is good through its willing alone. Contrary to some people’s belief, to be healthy, wealthy, or happy does not guarantee that a person is morally praiseworthy. Many people object to this statement because these characteristics are good features of human nature and benefits of a good life. However, they have value only under appropriate conditions, since they may be used either for good or for evil. For example, Hitler had all these characteristics, but he had an ill will. Thus, he was undeniably not a good person. Therefore, these characteristics do not make the possessor a good person.
Bill Gates has been the richest man in America for a few years. He undoubtedly has more money than he will ever spend, but just recently has started to donate some of his money to charity. Some people would say he donates money because he has a good will, and, therefore, he is a morally good person. But did Bill Gates really donate money because he had a good will? No, he gave money to charity because of social pressure, not a good will. He would have started donating much earlier if he would have had a good will. However, it wasn’t until he and Microsoft started to get a bad, greedy reputation that he started to donate his money. Therefore, Bill Gates did not donate because of a good will, and is not a morally good person for doing so. A good will is easily distinguished from one that acts from an indirect inclination, doing the right thing merely as a means to an end, for a selfish purpose. For many people, the difficult thing is to distinguish a good will from a will that has a direct inclination to do something that is right.
11、笛卡爾的哲學思想
He had difficultly embracing the diverse, and sometimes hypocritical, ideas he encountered in his studies. He developed a skeptical frame of reference; this uncertain point of view aided him in developing Meditations. All that he saw, tasted, touched, smelled and heard was caste into uncertainty. He thought all of his confusion and indeterminate ideas were caused by the senses. According to Descartes, the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once. He used the example of perceiving the sun and the moon. When both are looked upon from earth, they appear to be about the same size and distance from our planet. Mathematics, however reveals an enormous difference in their size and distance. This is why he desperately needed to abandon all he had learned and acquired through the senses.
Certainty surged beyond all that he doubted, and to know these certainties led Descartes to the truth. To know, according to Descartes, was to have a clear and distinct perception of an idea. One could perceive ideas clearly and distinctly through a process of introspection and reflection. When a person abandoned all that was received through the senses, they were then able to deduce the essence of an idea. The essence was the most basic foundation of existence; that was the simplest universal truth. To know was to truly understand the essence of a thing or idea.
The first thing Descartes was able to clearly and distinctly perceive was the idea of the mind. The mind represented the self or the idea of I. It did not represent the self as in physical appearances because the mind has no physical attributes. The mind, according to Descartes, is simply the thing that thinks. The essence of the mind is a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling and also imagines and has sensory perceptions. He also knew with certainty the idea of an extended thing. By extension he meant a body or substance that existed in nature, and outside the mind which essence he could describe with mathematical certainty. He emphasized a distinction between the mind and body. Descartes clearly and distinctly perceived an idea of a Supreme Being or God, the perfect infinite manifestation of mind.
12、笛卡爾的沉思理論
Rene Descartes Meditations in the First Philosophy is a skeptical speculation on certain inalienable truths. Descartes meditations are based on the epistemological theory of rationalism, that is, if someone truly knows something, then they could not possibly be mistaken. He provides solid arguments for what his six meditations stand for, and how he obtained a clear and distinct perception of innate ideas. In Meditations, he comes to terms with three certainties:the existence of the mind as the thing that thinks, the body as an extension, and God as the Supreme Being. He attests that he comes to these conclusions by doubting all that had been taught to him in his formal education, and all he received through the senses. Descartes’s first uncertainty was noted in Discourse of Method.
13、笛卡爾理論：沉思理論I
Descartes is interested in the certainty of his existence and the existence of other people and things. Descartes’ beliefs vary from those of Socrates. Descartes argues that knowledge is acquired through awareness and experience. Using this approach, Descartes moves through doubt to certainty of his existence. He asks himself various questions about the certainty of his existence and solves them through clear thought and logic. By using this method Descartes establishes doubts to be truths and by the end of the book, he has established that he does indeed exist.
In the First Meditation, Descartes begins to examine what is certain and what is doubtful. Descartes wants to establish that his knowledge is certain and not doubtful. He states: “I had accepted many false opinions as being true, and that what I had based on such insecure principles could only be most doubtful and uncertain; so that I had to undertake seriously once in my life to rid myself of all opinions I had adopted up to then, and to begin, and to begin afresh from the foundations, if I wished to establish something firm and constant in the sciences.” By this, Descartes means that he wishes to establish a foundation for his knowledge based on certainty instead of doubt.
Descartes first looks at the senses. This is important because the senses are the first thing to cause doubt. He focuses on the perception of things. He says that things far from him, in the distance, give him reason to doubt their certainty, while things that are close to him are indubitable and he is clear about their certainty. However, Descartes realizes that dreams pose an obstacle to his beliefs. Even up close, dreams cannot be indubitable. Descartes believes that if a person has had a dream that was so intense that the person could not distinguish it from reality, then they have reason to doubt objects that are close to them and appear to be indubitable. In order to resolve this problem, Descartes suggests that one must examine whether they are dreaming or not.
Descartes realizes that he cannot rely on his senses any more to give him dubitable truths. He turns to find something that is indubitable. Descartes tries to use science as a foundation for truth. He discards physics, astronomy, and medicine because all three of them rely upon the senses. “...we shall not be wrong in concluding that physics, astronomy, and medicine, and all the other sciences that depend on the consideration of composite things, are most doubtful and uncertain...” However, Descartes finds that such things as geometry and arithmetic can be trusted because there are no senses involved. They are based upon logic. “...whether I am awake or asleep, two and three added together always makes five, and a square always has four sides; and it does not seem possible that truths so apparent can be suspected of any falsity or uncertainty.”
However, Descartes finds reason to even doubt this. The only thing that could make these truths dubitable is through the intervention by an Evil Deceiver （God）. Descartes cannot prove that God is good and has to acknowledge that God has the power to deceive. Therefore, Descartes must doubt all things until he can prove their certainty. Descartes comes to call this doubt Universal Doubt.
14、笛卡爾理論：沉思理論II
In the Second Meditation, Descartes examine the existence of himself. He concludes that if he cannot prove something exists, then how he knows with certainty that he exists. It is his doubt of his existence that Descartes uses to prove his existence. Descartes realizes that if he is able to doubt then he does indeed exists. He takes the approach that, “I think, therefore I am” to establish a certainty that he exists. This idea also known as the cogito becomes the central point that Descartes will use for the remaining of his meditations. Descartes affirms his existence every time he thinks, doubts, or is persuaded.
Descartes affirms that if there is an Evil Deceiver, then Descartes must exist because in order for God to deceive, he himself must first exist. Although, Descartes has proved his existence, he can only prove it in the mental capacity. He does not know for certain that he exists in the physical form. The only way, at this time, that Descartes can prove the existence of his body is through his senses. He has already established that his senses are dubitable and therefore cannot tell him with certainty that his body exists. In order to get a better understanding of his relationship between his body and mind, Descartes melts a piece of wax. He observes the wax in two different states, the first in a solid form and the second in a melted form. He questions how his senses can show him two entirely different forms of the same substance; yet he knows that the substance, in both states, although completely different, is wax. The mind is able to understand the essence of the wax. Although the senses are not entirely capable of making the connection between the two forms of wax, the senses assist the mind in determining what the substance is. This experiment proves to be important to Descartes, because he is able to make a link between the senses and the mind.