* Once your purchase is processed by paypal you will be redirected back to this page and you'll have the option to download the paper. We'll also send the paper to your paypal email address as proof of purchase.Download Paper
Kant believes that traits like beauty, wit, intelligence, courage, and wealth are not unconditional goods, i.e., they are not goods in themselves because one can utilize all of these traits for evil or immoral ends/purposes in society. Therefore Kant does not believe that happiness is the ultimate goal of our societal actions; for our immediate inclination and desire might be to use the above traits in immoral ways in order to achieve an immediate state of happiness, while acting from a purely just standpoint might involve the rational thwarting of these immediate desires for the sake of human dignity.
In the end, then, one will have acted in a just way but may have sacrificed happiness as a result. What is your take on Kant's account of human action here? Do you think that he is correct in saying that one might be a praiseworthy person but nevertheless be unhappy (perhaps even miserable)?
A Person Who Is Praiseworthy Could Potentially Be Unhappy Or Miserable
Length: 5 pages (1375 Words)
A Person Who Is Praiseworthy Could Potentially Be Unhappy or Miserable
Living an unhappy life is quite a common phenomenon for many people all over the world. There are many situations that make an individual to feel miserable or unhappy. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher argues that a praiseworthy person can as well be unhappy. You might find people with a lot of resources and wealth but at the same time, they are unhappy with the kind of life they live because of their life experiences, knowledge, and reasoning. There are human actions that show hopelessness in life despite the material things, knowledge, beauty, intelligence, courage, or humor. I will argue that Kant was right when he said that an individual might be praiseworthy but at the same time be unhappy or miserable.