Immanuel Kant Double Action Analysis
A second person that would agree with the idea of war having a different set of rules in the sense that war is more instinctive then that of a habit is Immanuel Kant. Kant holds the idea of the categorical imperative. Categorical is the Latin root to mean without exception and imperative means what must be done. This sums up the idea of one’s duty which Kant describes that duty is something one must do without exception. This idea of duty leans towards the idea of instinct because every person in the battle field has a duty to bring each other home at whatever cost. Sometimes that means possibly risking your life for that person, but I guess if you look at from a stoic perspective and use the principle of double effect the outcome should always be
…show more content…
Part one is if instinct can be considered as a virtue. The second part is if war truly has no bounds and almost everything one tries to learn may not be valid on the battle field. As far as part one goes, instinct is defined as a fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. Therefore, one may not inherently habituate one’s self to become instinctively good. Since instinct is now a vital role in one’s ability to make both rational and irrational decisions, it may be assumed that one may act before thinking in the context of war. This is true since actions happen so fast that if one hesitates to think it may do more harm than good, causing a failure in that soldier’s duty. Sometimes it may not just be the participants themselves that effect the behaviors of war, but the idea of warfare itself as it changes to new meanings and ways to be fought throughout age. From Aristotle believing that his ruling of habituation leading to the overall achievement of the mean. Lastly, Carl von Clausewitz once said that war, “resembles a game of cards.” War in the sense is unpredictable, which leads to the instinctive behavior that is needed to both survive and do one’s
Part one is if instinct can be considered as a virtue. The second part is if war truly has no bounds and almost everything one tries to learn may not be valid on the battle field. As far as part one goes, instinct is defined as a fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. Therefore, one may not inherently habituate one’s self to become instinctively good. Since instinct is now a vital role in one’s ability to make both rational and irrational decisions, it may be assumed that one may act before thinking in the context of war. This is true since actions happen so fast that if one hesitates to think it may do more harm than good, causing a failure in that soldier’s duty. Sometimes it may not just be the participants themselves that effect the behaviors of war, but the idea of warfare itself as it changes to new meanings and ways to be fought throughout age. From Aristotle believing that his ruling of habituation leading to the overall achievement of the mean. Lastly, Carl von Clausewitz once said that war, “resembles a game of cards.” War in the sense is unpredictable, which leads to the instinctive behavior that is needed to both survive and do one’s