ant claims that protecting your own life is a duty-toward-oneself (moral obligation) each of us has. But Kant seems to think that when you run away from a danger out of your inborn instinct to protect your life, you do not act out of duty to protect your life (you act out of instinct). Therefore, protecting your life out of instinct does not have any moral content. Why would Kant think that protecting your life out of instinct does not count as a fulfillment of your moral obligation to protect your life (what is the difference between acting out of duty and acting out of instinct)?
ant claims that protecting your own life is a duty-toward-oneself (moral obligation) each of us has. But Kant seems to think that when you run away from a danger out of your inborn instinct to protect your life, you do not act out of duty to protect your life (you act out of instinct). Therefore, protecting your life out of instinct does not have any moral content. Why would Kant think that protecting your life out of instinct does not count as a fulfillment of your moral obligation to protect your life (what is the difference between acting out of duty and acting out of instinct)?
Related questions
Question
100%
Kant claims that protecting your own life is a duty-toward-oneself (moral obligation) each of us has. But Kant seems to think that when you run away from a danger out of your inborn instinct to protect your life, you do not act out of duty to protect your life (you act out of instinct). Therefore, protecting your life out of instinct does not have any moral content.
Why would Kant think that protecting your life out of instinct does not count as a fulfillment of your moral obligation to protect your life (what is the difference between acting out of duty and acting out of instinct)?
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
