According to Nagel, science has changed how people think about the world and things in it. Science concentrates on the physical aspect and explains everything based on physical characteristics, what can be seen with the eyes (Nagel 435). Therefore, thinking remains objective based on what people can see around. However, there are things that cannot be seen and the objective thinking detaches from the subjective experiences that people undergo and cannot explain by describing physically. The inability of science to help theorists in explaining the subjective experiences complicated the problem of mind-body relationship. It implies that Nagel’s article “What it is like to be Bat” raises the question of consciousness that many of the theorists who have explored the mind usually omit in their explanation. In his article, Nagel states that every animal has something that makes it feel like an organism (Nagel 436). That thing is consciousness brought about by the presence of the mind in the brain. However, the description of the brain without including consciousness makes the relationship between the mind and body difficult. Therefore, the brain does not use something physical to function, but one that is mortal, consciousness enabled by the mind. The implication of Thomas Nagel’s article for our understanding of the relationship between mind and brain is that the two works together or they are one thing. The brain thinks the mind makes the feeling of consciousness to justify what it is to be like a particular thing.
I think Nagel is correct because rational objectivity is not the only way that people can use in obtaining the true understanding of something. Using the example of a bat, Nagel gives scientists a task to think like a bat or see themselves of how it is to be like a bat. Explaining such, a phenomenon extends from the physical to the conscious mental processes within a person. The inner feeling of consciousness can help in gaining a true understanding of what it is to be like a bat. When thinking about some of the aspects and experiences of life, it is not possible to disconnect the brain from the mind and the vice versa is true. Ignoring the subjective meaning created by thinking through consciousness will mean that some of the animals like the bat do not exist. According to Nagel, every animal that has life can think and feel. Further, it is not possible for human beings to establish the feeling of a bat because they are not the bat themselves. The bat has consciousness, an element that makes it feel like a bat. The relationship between mind and body is that they are inseparable; they exist in the subjective scenario to explain what it is like to be something. Consciousness helps people to explain the world of what it is like from inside their mind.
Therefore, Nagel’s implication of the relationship between the mind and body is that it is impossible for scientists to solve the mind-body problem using the physical explanation that ignores the mind and considering the brain to be the only significant thing and worth of studying. The article challenges scientists to take this view of brain and mind working together to obtain a true understanding of something. Consciousness is feeling the self that has a progressive conscious experience of living and life. Objective and subjective meanings must be derived based on the item of evaluation. Not all aspects fit within the objective rationality.
Kantian Moral Philosophy
Kant’s Objective Grounds for Morality
Kant’s provides objective grounds for morality on two grounds of universal application and humanity. Kant stated that there is a supreme principle "Categorical Imperative" that should guide people when making decisions about what is right or wrong. The morality of an action must be guided by the categorical imperative principle which is an objective rationality. It is an unconditional rule that should be followed always even if there are other factors that can make people think to the contrary. Any moral requirement must be guided by this principle and that immoral actions will always be irrational and violating the categorical imperative. To come up with the categorical imperative principle, Kant formulated the rule based on the universal application and humanity grounds.
On the grounds of the universal application, Kant claimed that a moral action must be applied universally. A moral action must be allowed for application to all people and all situations without the possibility of a contradiction taking place. The presence of a contradiction based on the situation or person will mean that such an action is immoral. Kant supports the view of Aristotle in explaining the universal applicability of grounds of a moral action that a just action will never have a contradiction. Kant also formulated the categorical imperative principle of the humanity grounds whereby any action should be performed considering humans as the end themselves and not humans as means to the end. It is immoral to treat other people as means to the end. The morality of an action holds when it is performed in such a way that humans are treated as ends in themselves.
Criticisms
Various philosophers have criticized the position of Kant on his ground of morality. Hegel criticized the moral ground of Kant in that it is a rule of non-contradiction. He says that Kant was supporting Aristotle’s view and did not provide particular information about the actions that people should perform to be regarded as moral. According to Hegel, Kantian ethics fails an explanation of its moral grounds and therefore the categorical imperative cannot be a supreme principle of morality. Hegel describes the emptiness of the moral law by Kant by saying that Kant's moral law alienates from sense by not giving a reason for an action. Kant's grounds are hypocritical as they abstract from the relationships of social life and concentrating on what ‘ought' to be and not what it ‘is' (Wood 154). Therefore, Kant's grounds for morality are doomed because they are empty formulations of what is right and wrong in the morality of an action.
Nietzsche criticized the moral grounds of Kantian ethics by arguing that it has problematic characteristics. The Kantian moral law presents a metaphysical claim of humanity that must be accepted by all people when performing actions. However, the benefit of such humanity will be benefiting the interests of specific people at the expense of others (Williams 204). Nietzsche says that Kant’s basis for morality does not have the normative force of ethics. The will and pure reason of an action may not always value the autonomy of individuals as well as respect that of others (Williams 203). Therefore, the reason and desire of an action according to Kant's philosophy are problematic as per Nietzsche's criticism. The strongest drive determines the decision made by the self. Reason and desire work as two motives in Kantian objective morality. Therefore, Kantian notion of reason leading to the motivation of a desire is impracticable.
Works Cited
Nagel, Thomas, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” The Philosophical Review, 1974, pp. 435-450.
Williams, Garrath, “Nietzsche’s Response to Kant’s Morality, The Philosophical Forum, 1999, pp.201-216.
Wood, Allen, “Hegel's Ethical Thought,” Cambridge University Press.
