Kant thinks that human beings can know something, like mathematical truth, before experiencing it. Why does he think that? Give an example of what he means. Do you agree or disagree with him? Why? According to Kant, one knows something only as it appears to a human being, but the thing “in itself” lies beyond human consciousness. Is there something “behind” experience that we can’t know? Why or why not? If not, which alternative philosophical standpoint is preferable? Explain your answer. Kant states that only deeds done from duty apart from inclination have moral worth. The implication is that if one gives to charity because one feels sorry for the poor, one has not acted rationally—and therefore morally—from an understanding of one’s duty, but from inclination. Do you agree with Kant that moral deeds should not consider one’s feelings but only respect for the moral law? Why or why not? Explain your answer with an example. If you continually do your duty from respect from the moral law, you’ll be morally good. If you’re perfectly moral, you’ll be happy. But happiness won’t come in this lifetime because you won’t be perfectly moral in this lifetime. If striving for moral perfection isn’t to be in vain, it is rational to believe in God as the guarantor of happiness in a future life. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not? NO OUTSIDE SOURCES ONLY TXTBOOK Melchert, D. & Morrow, D. The Great Conversation, CTC Custom Edition, 8th Edition, Oxford University Press.