The interconnectedness between shared and private knowledge of religions, science, and more generally belief systems has systematically ruled every aspect of human life. Everything from the minute decisions that make up our daily lives, such as choosing clothes for the morning or deciding whether to pull the plug on someone we love, is based on the knowledge and personal experiences we have shared. A belief in oneself is often defined as the support for an idea. The belief that one can use to justify his or her actions based on shared or personal knowledge is called belief in itself. Kant says morality is when decisions are made in accordance with his categorical imperative. Moving on to specific shared information, I’ll discuss the medical community. It is connected like all scientific communities by a shared understanding of the human anatomy. Kant’s “respect of persons” theory asserts that we are not just a physical entity, but are also persons. These are autonomous moral agents with intrinsic moral worth. This makes people deserving moral respect.
The paper will examine whether or not we believe in sharing knowledge. We also discuss the notion of one’s belief in the superiority of their own knowledge over that held by another person due to their authority. Kant’s stance is that even though shared knowledge can evolve over the course of time, and it seems most logical, an individual cannot ignore their intrinsic value and its implications. Kant’s Moral Theory serves to defend individual thought against strong belief structures based in logic and historical facts, also known as the scientific community and religious communites. Each group has further details that explain how they have formed justifications for their actions. Immanuel Kant’s moral theory shares the Utilitarianism approach to morality. He argues that there is an intrinsic value theory. Kant views happiness as pleasure and pain, but the utilitarian consider happiness to be what is intrinsically valuable. Kant considers the only thing with moral value that it has for its own sake the goodwill. The above mentioned communities fail to see happiness as more than a feeling of spiritual or chemical joy. They believe happiness is a general feeling that affects the entire group and not the individual. A doctor might decide to donate an organ to someone without complications. The patient may be unable to donate an organ due to fear, religion, or other factors. This last reason is contrary to Kant’s concept of a CI, which Kant argued was an objective, rationally required and unconditional principle that must be followed regardless of any natural inclinations or desires. This means that while donating organs is an act of selflessness that could save a life, you should not allow your family to know about the death. Bioethics now includes philosophy, which considers the non-physical human “self” as well. Scientists have redefined emotion and mental states not as human responses but as chemical reactions.
Medical ethics and bioethics are no longer about physicians’ conduct. They now include the medical practices that deem patients inferior in matters relating to their bodies. This leads to issues such as informed consent, which will be discussed later. The body is viewed as a separate entity. This could be understood to mean that physicians and philosophers have shared more knowledge than the patient. The doctor is the one who holds the majority in a trusting relationship between patient and doctor. The natural sciences are the basis of this shared knowledge. In these sciences, happiness is subordinated to well-being. This shared knowledge enables the physician to have a greater personal knowledge than the patient, while the doctor appears to be the authority. Here, the term physician or doctor does not refer only to an individual, but to the person who decides what is correct for the body. In their care, the patient is an inferior person. The scientific community and the medical community can be interchangeably used in the sense that they have similar knowledge, which puts the patient’s well-being ahead of their happiness. These arguments call into question whether doctors can be considered to be authorities in public healthcare without taking into account the personal information of their patients. Kant’s “Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals (1785),” will be my next source of information. It will allow me to examine Kant’s moral theories as a way to justify doctors’ tendency to prioritise their shared knowledge over their personal knowledge.
Science can alleviate physical symptoms, but not all aspects. I reexamine the definition of happiness that Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism offer. I conclude that shared knowledge should evolve in a way that includes personal knowledge. Is it possible for people to have a sense that they are sharing knowledge, or is there more reason to share knowledge? The psychology and genes of our bodies are so dominant that it seems as though the physical can be fully understood. Therefore, scientists and doctors have the authority to care for our bodies. Free will is possible when our physical bodies have an inbuilt bias to our thoughts/knowledge formulation. Kant’s theory can be evaluated to see if it is possible to justify science’s overriding Kant’s moral theories. Next, we will talk about two possible formulations that Kant’s respect of persons theory can provide. The first is “Always Treat Persons (Including You) and Ends in Their Own Right, Never merely as a Mean to Your Own Ends” and the second is “Act only according to that universal law that you are able to consistently follow.”
Kant treats people as individuals and not as means to an ulterior motive. However, it is possible for almost all actions to be connected with an ulterior motive that is not pure morality. This shouldn’t discourage anyone, for Kant said that moral principles arise from reason and are not based on experience. Moral principles cannot be derived from experience. All experiences are dependent on specific circumstances. However, moral principles must be absolute and valid regardless of any circumstances. Because personal knowledge is primarily derived from experience, physicians may not feel obligated to prevent harm to patients. However, shared knowledge is not based on experience and evolves continuously with the group. This shared knowledge is more reliable, but it may not be as accurate without the participation of patients.
Utilitarians would classify happiness as a measure of one’s worth. But doctors who regulate society’s health are only allowed to achieve happiness when that is the result of their physical well-being. This means that doctors no longer provide pleasure/happiness which is intrinsically value. They only incite suffering and pain that is intrinsically useful to utilitarianism. One example is that one could base moral principles on the belief that selfishness will bring you the most happiness if one has stolen candy and been rewarded with it. This would make it much more difficult to apply this consistently in order for one to establish a categorical imperative. Although the medical practice area would not see a change in its shared knowledge from one conflict between patient or doctor, it could influence the direction bioethics is heading. One area of contention would be the religious knowledge systems of Orthodox Jews or Christian Science, who do not believe that medical treatment is effective. Although religion has been undermining in importance, it wasn’t always so. The two have been closely linked throughout recorded history. They separated only recently.
Physical illness was not well understood until several hundred year ago. Hippocratic medicine was a form of medicine that focused on balancing bodily fluids and humors. Platonic medicine incorporated science with mystical elements, while Asclepian medicine used astrology and magic to treat illness. Many patients use religious beliefs and practices to cope with the terrifying experience of illness. It is not surprising that some sufferers have used these beliefs and practices to understand and cope with this frightening experience. Three-quarters of the 372 consecutive North Carolina medical patients were asked to identify the key factor that allowed them to deal with stress. It was religion for more than 42% of patients (42%) who spontaneously responded.
This preference is to rely on faith, not reason, which is the equivalent of science over religion. The way these people are treated will depend on whether they hope for their well-being or are trying to stop the increase in mortality at their workplace. While the former may be understood as seeking to improve the health of the patient or their well-being, it can also be seen that they are trying to use their knowledge gained from medical school. This would contradict Kant’s categorical imperative to treat people as ends rather than means. The authority of shared knowledge might be the determining factor in whether personal knowledge is possible.