4. What's the difference between acting in conformity with the law and "for the sake of the law?" Can you think of examples of figures from last semester who grappled with this problem and what answer or answers did they arrive at?.
Acting in conformity with the law could, in some cases, be unintentional or self-serving in some way. However, acting "for the sake of the law,"" requires a conscious decision to follow the law out of reverence for the law as a principle. Aristotle also deals with this issue in a similar way in his Nicomachean Ethics. In his investigation of justice, Aristotle argues that intention is crucial for an action that is in to be considered virtuous. This eliminates the possibility for an act that is "in conformity with the law" performed accidentally to be a moral act.
5. How does Kant's treatment of generosity differ from Hume's? Under what conditions does a generous act have "moral content" for Kant? .
Hume places a much greater importance on the emotional, sentimental aspect of generosity, whereas Kant asserts that the value of generosity lies in a more objective principle. Using philanthropy as an example, Hume would argue that giving money to the less fortunate is moral because it is considered worthy of esteem in the eyes of mankind. For Kant, the act of giving money is not necessarily moral; the intention and mindset of the philanthropist is the determining factor. If the individual gives money because he moved by a beggar's misfortune or because of the satisfaction he might receive for having bettered someone else's life, this act according to Kant, "has no moral basis." In this situation, the act of giving a beggar money is only moral if the individual does it simply because he recognizes it as his duty to do so.
6. What is it, in Kant's view, that makes the commandment "Love thy neighbor" a duty? .
Kant interprets this commandment from scripture as a duty because the sentiment of love cannot be forced.
