Modern Period

Modern Period

Modern period came in the early 20th century and was primarily distinguishable by rebellious mood. The approaches anticipated to revitalize how modern civilization viewed issues like politics, science and life. Between 1900 and 1930, the rebellious mood became somewhat familiar to society as a way to reject the European culture, which was corrupt, complacent, and passive. It ailed since it was bound by society artificialities that put much emphasis on public image and at the same time too scared of change. The moral bankruptcy dissatisfaction on or about everything influenced some great European thinkers of modern history to figure out about other alternatives, more primarily, primitive cultures. As such, they had already predicted that the new emerging culture would be subject to undermining culture and authority in the name of enlightening the contemporary society (Murphy, 2002). This paper aims to critically analyze the modern period based on three theories of the truth, that is, correspondence theory, coherence theory, and other ethical arguments.

The correspondence theory points out that the truth or falsity of utterance is predetermined how it associates to the world and whether it describes the universe accurately (David, 2002). Russel and Moore developed the theory at the beginning of the twentieth century. Thomas Aquinas interpreted the theory as “truth is the equation of thing and intellect (David, 2002). In other words, perception is presumed to be truthful if only it conforms to the external reality. According to the coherence theory of truth, any correct postulation entails in its soundness with part of a particular set of hypotheses (Davidson, 2000). This theory goes contrary to the correspondence theory based on two on two primal respects. The two theories conflict on the issue that propositions bear to their truth conditions as one insist that relation is coherence while the other is correspondence. Secondly, they also conflict on the matter of truth conditions. Coherence theory cites that the truth contexts of postulations entail in the other hypothesis. At the same time, correspondence theory indicates that truth conditions are world objectives features as opposed to being in a general proposition.

Nihilism is one of the characteristics that defined the modern period. Nihilism opposes the existence of God or rather the religion, not to mention the moral principles as the only simple way of obtaining social progress. It means that the modern societies repudiated the societal, ethical codes in which they were living in. It, however, does not mean that some of the greatest philosophers in the modern period did not believe in God or that they came up against the meaninglessness of life, although, a significant number of them were atheists. A German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant, analyzed on the critique of pure reasons and the categorical imperatives. All discussions about ethics mostly bring the issue about God. According to the divine command theory, a deity predetermines what is good or bad. Thomas Aquinas, in his theory of natural law, affirms that morality comes from us because God made us.

Immanuel Kant viewed religion and morality as a terrible pairing, insisting that what is good or right is subject to the application of pure reasons, and a sense of consideration for other individuals (Kant, 1785). Perhaps, Kant understood the fact that if all the people were to use religion as the basis for their morality, they all could not find the same answers. It is pretty much confident that morality is constant. For example, one plus one equals two, whether you are atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc. Kant pointed out that in most scenarios, it not a moral choice on whether or not people ought to do something, but rather a contingent in their desires (Kant, 1785). Kant regarded these commands that one should always adhere to when they need something specific as hypothetical imperatives. For example, if one wants to get rich, you ought to work hard towards making money. Hypothetical imperatives are somewhat inclined to prudence as opposed to morality.

According to Kant, morality is all about categorical imperatives (CI). Categorical imperatives are commands that one must adhere to irrespective of one’s desires, and that moral duties come from pure reasons (Williams, 1968). Moreover, it does not matter whether or not one wants to be moral as the moral law binds all the people. As such, no religion is required to predetermines such a law since what is a virtue or vice is knowable by applying one’s intellect. Categorical imperatives follow two fundamental principles, that is, the universalizability principle and the formula of humanity. The universalizability principle demand people to act in adherence to the maxim in which one can and at the same time will without any contradiction to the universal law. As such, the maxim is more of a general rule, while the universal law is something that needs to be done is the same scenarios. If one steals, it means that you approve to the maxim of stealing and other people should always steal and of course it brings about contradiction. The universal law does not make exceptions to one’s self as that is unfair.

In the second principle, the formula of humanity, it reprimands people for acting so that they treat humanity as an end and not as a mere means (Kant, 1785). Using one as a mere means is to use that person for your gain without considering the interests of the person or thing you are using. Humans are rational and autonomous; thus, they can set their objectives and work towards achieving them (Williams, 1968). As such, humans are imbued with an absolute moral worth, and that translates to, they should not be manipulated or manipulate other autonomous agents.

References

Murphy, M. (2002). The natural law tradition in ethics.

David, M. (2002). The correspondence theory of truth.

Davidson, D. (2000). A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. Epistemology: an anthology, 154-163.

Kant, I. (1785). The categorical imperative.

Williams, T. C. (1968). The concept of the categorical imperative: a study of the place of the categorical imperative in Kant’s ethical theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.