Use only the sources I provide and cite them correctly as used in the paper*
At the heart of Kant’s ethics is his idea of freedom as autonomy (auto-nomos, self-legislating)—we are only free if we are acting autonomously. We are autonomous when we are deciding not only what to do, but why we are doing it and acting not because we want to but because we decided to (in Kant-speak: “Autonomy of the will is the property the will has of being a law to itself” (GMM, 44). Someone who follows religious rules like not eating pork because it is how he or she is raised is not acting freely, even if he or she chooses to not eat pork. He or she is only free—autonomous—if he or she has thought about the religious rules and decided they are the right ones and is not eating pork because of that decision. Otherwise he or she is just following the crowd or his or her desires or his or her culture, without question, and that’s not truly being responsible for his or her actions. Freedom, according to Kant, then, is hard work and lots of people think they are acting freely when they are not.
First, explain the connection in Kant’s ethics between acting freely and acting morally. Then consider these three consequences of Kant’s moral theory. Rank them from most likely true to least likely true and give reasons for your ranking.
1. God as a rational being cannot command you to do something immoral, so if you think you hear an immoral command (Kant’s example: Abraham being told, “kill your son”) you know it’s not from God.
2. Animals are incapable of acting morally since they are incapable of being autonomous.
3. No one freely—autonomously—does something immoral. All immoral acts are either not done on principle, or are done according to hypothetical imperatives.
Three pages, double spaced. Remember the typo policy.
*Use only the sources I provide and cite them correctly as used in the paper*