fazel boostan; mohammad shokry; Ali Mradkhani
Abstract
Kant in Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason, offers the theory that human nature is essentially a radical evil. Kant's argument for Radical evil consists mainly of two parts; One is man's innate desire for evil and the other is the claim that radical evil is universality. By rejecting the theory ...
Read More
Kant in Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason, offers the theory that human nature is essentially a radical evil. Kant's argument for Radical evil consists mainly of two parts; One is man's innate desire for evil and the other is the claim that radical evil is universality. By rejecting the theory of original sin, Kant first insists that evil is the inevitable characteristic of human nature, but that we have a moral responsibility for it. Because we freely choose and follow it. Kant argues that the innate talent or desire in a rational and limited factor is a mental principle or action that tends toward evil. Radical evil is both an innate desire and a moral action; A contradictory situation that has led commentators to consider it incompatible with Kant's other moral theories and to reject it. The purpose of this article is to critique the concept of Radical evil from Kant's point of view and its relation to moral authority and responsibility; Because attributing Radical evil to individual freedom is the beginning of the position of moral independence.
