ESSAY QUESTION:
1. Outline Kant's account of what makes an action moral. In what ways is Kant's view superficially like the Golden Rule ("Do as you would be done by"), and in what way is it different? Is Kant's account of morality objective, or subjective? What about the Golden Rule?
2. Outline the sort of society that Rawls believes would be just. How does this reflect a Kantian concern with persons as ends? What is the objection that Okin levels against Rawls' view? Do you believe that Rawls could meet this objection? What other objections might be developed against Rawls' position? Do you believe that they could be met?
3. What are Kant's objections to Hume's epistemology? How did they lead him to develop his own views in response to Hume?
4. How does Kant allow for the possibility of human free will? How is this relevant to his account of morality?
5. How should we treat humanity, according to Kant? What does this mean in practice? What arguments does he give for this view? Do you find them persuasive, or not? If not, do you think that better arguments can be developed in support of his view, or do you think that we should reject it? Justify your answer in each case.
6. What is the distinction between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative? How is this relevant to Kantian moral theory?
7. How does Kant's account of morality differ from that of Hume? How do these differences reflect the epistemological differences between these two philosophers?
8. What can be known, according to Kant?