The connections between personal and shared knowledge within religious communities, science or any other belief system has systematically ruled over all aspects in life. We make decisions based on shared or personal knowledge, whether it is the small things like picking the right outfit for the day or the big decisions such as when to cut the cord on a loved one. An idea is considered belief in itself if it is supported by others. The belief that one can use to justify his or her actions based on shared or personal knowledge is called belief in itself. Kant states that morality is only possible when our actions follow his categorical imperative. Moving on to specific knowledge shared knowledge, I’ll talk about the medical communiion. This is similar to other scientific communities and is linked by shared knowledge concerning understanding the human body. 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.
We will discuss in this paper whether we believe that shared knowledge exists and how that belief can be overridden by the belief that a person’s knowledge or their personal knowledge. Kant argues that although shared knowledge is possible to evolve over time, it can be ignored because of its intrinsic value and implications. Kant’s moral theories serve as a defense for individual thought against strong belief systems, such scientific communities and religious communities. Each group has further details that explain how they have come to justify their actions. Immanuel Kant’s moral theory shares the Utilitarianism approach to morality. He argues that intrinsic value is the foundation of his moral theory. Kant believes happiness, which is thought of as pleasure or the absence of suffering, to be what constitutes intrinsic value. The above mentioned communities do not 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 nonphysical “self”, in the human body. 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. This shared knowledge stems from natural sciences, in which the happiness of an individual is more important than their well-being. This shared knowledge overrides the physician’s own knowledge. The doctor, who appears to be an authority figure, is not able to see the patient’s knowledge. Here, the term physician or doctor does not refer only to an individual but to the person who determines what is correct and wrong for the body. In their care, the patient is an inferior person. It is possible to use the terms scientific community and medical communiy interchangeably if they are based on the same shared knowledge that places the well-being of the patient above 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 1785 “Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals” will be used to investigate Kant’s moral theory and justify doctors’ preference for shared knowledge over personal.
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 is all that exists. 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 is evaluated and the usefulness of it in determining if science can justify overriding Kant’s moral theory. Next, we will talk about two possible formulations that Kant’s respect of persons theory can provide. First, treat all persons (including yourself) with respect. Second, act only on that maxim you can consistently make a universal law.
Kant is able to see people as more than just means to an ulterior goal. But almost all actions can be tied to ulterior motives other than pure morality. But this shouldn’t be disconcerting because Kant believes moral principles must come from reason and 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. The difference is that shared knowledge can not be derived from personal experience. Instead, it continuously evolves with the group. This shared knowledge is more reliable, but it may not be as accurate without the participation of patients.
Utilitarians can only classify one’s happiness by its quantifiable nature. 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. The importance of religion has been diminished over time, but this wasn’t always true. These two groups have been tightly linked through most of recorded human history. They only separated recently.
Physical illness was initially understood mostly in religious and spiritual terms, up to a few 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. These doctors would have to decide whether they are concerned about the well-being of the patients or if they want to keep the mortality rate at their job from rising. The first can be considered as seeking the person’s well-being or their health, and could also be seen in the context of trying to apply their medical school information. This would be contrary to Kant’s categorical imperative not treating people as means but ends. It is important to consider whether personal knowledge can exist in the light of shared knowledge’s authority.
