stefanmileror

· 24 Sep 2021

Follow Following

Korsgaard Reading

About the author: Stefan Miller is a master in Literature at Ohio University. He is currently working as one of the best writers at the annotated bibliography writing services He also studies male psychology.

Korsgaard analyzes various philosophical questions and problems, paying attention to the basic philosophical concepts of Kant and Plato. She explores how a person should form his or her own identity based on ethical and social standards. In particular, her main focus is on the reasons why people commit some acts choosing the most optimal option for them. In this context, the basic principles of human behavior are Kantian imperative and Plato’s justice, which identify one’s harmonious coexistence with other people in any society.
The philosopher explores the difference between the hypothetical and categorical imperatives, which are requirements of practical rationality. According to Korsgaard, the hypothetical imperative presupposes the following: no means should justify the goal. However, there is a willing that differs from desire or thinking. Thus, the problem is how to combine what one has to do with what one does. For instance, the latter determines the categorical imperative, which is the practical realization of ethical standards in life. The categorical imperative states that one should never will a maxim that one could not will as a universal law. As a result, both imperatives are the main principles of volition and action.
Accordingly, the action defines itself as the cause of a certain end, which determines only human existence. Thus, no other creature has objectives and acts according to them. Each action must have an impulse and a principle, leading to a conscious act that further forms one’s worldview. Following this point, the philosopher discusses the problem of the soul on the basis of constitutional and combat models, which refer to Plato’s idea of human mind. Therefore, Korsgaard rejects the idea that the soul is something supernatural and irrational. On the contrary, she states that the soul is the realization of reason, which allows a person to commit good and right acts. Nevertheless, Korsgaard believes that there is a conflict between the autonomy of Kantian argument and the constitutive unity of Plato. In other words, people do not behave badly because they want to, but because they are pushed by certain external circumstances, which cannot be changed due to the imperatives.
All in all, Korsgaard tries to unite Kant and Plato in a single theory of human behavior, considering various ethical paradoxes. In fact, such a desire looks interesting because these two philosophers differ significantly in their views. On the one hand, both Kant and Plato insist on the need to form themselves in accordance with the imperatives/virtues that will help to have a happy life and to be in harmony with others. On the other hand, they disagree on their views since Kant focuses on the immutable moral imperatives that constitute human activity, while Plato often appeals to external social expectations and values ??that should be a criterion for a citizen, as well as a person. Accordingly, Korsgaard builds her instrumental theory of human behavior, where the main principles are cause/reason and effect. However, the drawback of this theory is that a person does not always behave rationally, thus his/her actions often do not fit into either the cause or the passion. Therefore, the best explanation in this situation is the philosophy of Hume, which actually rejects the two models, offering a synthesis of their advantages. Despite this, Korsgaard again returns to the ancient philosophy, in particular to Plato and Socrates, analyzing the soul as the basis of a happy life.
In conclusion, Korsgaard combines the moral imperatives of Kant and Plato’s theory of the soul, synthesizing them in her own original theory of self-constitution. The author is convinced that a person should be guided by certain goals (maxims), correlating his/her acts with the autonomy of other people. However, the difference is that a person lives intentionally, but not instinctually, constituting his/her own existence in such a way.