Proponents of religious morality present diverse views on the topic of understanding evil. However, Hämäläinen (2016) portends that Socrates embraces the ideology of good character, virtue, moral attributes, and the concept of righteousness, especially for the appreciation, love, and suitable for God’s creation. Socrates’s conception of morality is guided by the calling to build up the best moral characters and treat others following God’s guidelines. According to Hämäläinen (2016) the central texts of Socrates’s ideology of shunning immoral conduct appreciate the love for all and serve as the primary sources of barring immoral character. Socrates’s philosophy, as an entity and proponent of religious morality, makes it easier to understand right and moral good. Moral virtues that emphasize on knowing good and doing right forms the basis of moral character and helps establish the proper ethical conducts.
Immanuel Kant is the father of categorical imperative, a philosophical approach towards evaluating one’s motivations towards one’s deed. Kant’s approach is grounded on the metaphysics of morals and has no connection to the belief in a Supreme Being. According to Kant, morality is the ultimate guidance of reason, whereby all obligations and callings stem. For example, according to Hämäläinen (2016) Kant emphasizes that evil acts such as murder are inappropriate as it does not utilize good, especially for the participants as such, since obligations on which they rely puts more emphasis on independent contemplations. Thus, in understanding the concept of secular morality, Kant presents a helpful philosophical outlook that is based on the needs of a definite act.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Despite being helpful, the two approaches ignore the concept of free will, especially towards making personal decisions. For example, Socrates approach appreciates the significance of supreme powers but fails to connect the idea of individualistic mindset in one’s act. On the other hand, Kant’s philosophy lacks the ground of holding against a thin line between free will and subjective consideration.
Reference
Hämäläinen, N. (2016). Descriptive Ethics: What Does Moral Philosophy Know about Morality? . Springer.
