You are on page 1of 11

Spring 2011 Midterm (109)

1. Luther’s On Christian Liberty is based upon a two-fold understanding of the


human being as having an inner nature (“spirit”) and an outer nature (“flesh”).
Whether someone is righteous or not, according to Luther, has nothing to do with
his or her outer nature. Luther argues that because righteousness has nothing to do
with the flesh, it has nothing to do with actions that can be observed outwardly. It is
therefore only an inner action that can justify a person (in other words, put him
“right” with God). Luther calls this inner action “faith,” the action of trusting in the
word of God. Luther says that when a person “cleaves” to the promises of God “with
a firm faith,” he or she “ not only partakes in, but is penetrated and saturated by, all
their virtues.” Luther describes the condition of being “penetrated and saturated”
by the word of God as a condition of perfect freedom, or “liberty.” Why does Luther
think that this condition is one of liberty?

- Freedom from; freedom from what is right

Now since these promises of God are words of holiness, truth, righteousness,
liberty, and peace, and are full of universal goodness; the soul, which cleaves to
them with a firm faith, is so united to them, nay, thoroughly absorbed by them, that
it not only partakes in, but is penetrated and saturated by, all their virtue. For if the
touch of Christ was healing, how much more does that most tender spiritual touch,
nay, absorption of the word, communicate to the soul all that belongs to the word.
In this way, therefore, the soul, through faith alone, [110] without works, is from the
word of God justified, sanctified, endued with truth, peace, and liberty, and filled full
with every good thing, and is truly made the child of God; as it is said: "To them
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."

2. In our last reading, from Immanuel Kant, we can see a different answer than
Luther give to the question of what places a person in a condition of liberty. For
Kant, what does liberty mean?

- Absolute law that everyone should follow

- Having some aspect that isn’t determined by natural world

- Outworld = flesh, works  not freedom; freedom comes from word of


God, spirit = LUTHER

- KANT = word of reason; all faith is reason (NOT revelation of bible)

In the Critique of Pure Reason,[54] Kant distinguishes between the transcendental


idea of freedom, which as a psychological concept is "mainly empirical" and refers
to "the question whether we must admit a power of spontaneously beginning a
series of successive things or states" as a real ground of necessity in regard to
causality,[55] and the practical concept of freedom as the independence of our will
from the "coercion" or "necessitation through sensuous impulses." Kant finds it a
source of difficulty that the practical concept of freedom is founded on the
transcendental idea of freedom,[56] but for the sake of practical interests uses the
practical meaning, taking "no account of… its transcendental meaning", which he
feels was properly "disposed of" in the Third Antinomy, and as an element in the
question of the freedom of the will is for philosophy "a real stumbling-block" that
has "embarrassed speculative reason".[55]
Kant calls practical "everything that is possible through freedom", and the pure
practical laws that are never given through sensuous conditions but are held
analogously with the universal law of causality are moral laws. Reason can give us
only the "pragmatic laws of free action through the senses", but pure practical laws
given by reason a priori[57]dictate "what ought to be done".[58][59]

3. One of the key principles that we have read about so far is the freedom of
religion. Milton argues for freedom of religion by first of all defining religion. What
are the two features of religion according to Milton?

- Defining religion: LECTURE NOTES *2 principles

First of all, it is a "belief", and second of all, a "practice." The practice is love of
one's neighbor. The belief is up to each individual to determine. (Notice how
Luther's "faith" has turned into "belief"; Luther would not admit that there are
different interpretations of the Word.)

4. William Penn also argued as a Quaker for the freedom of religion. He bases his
argument on the nature of Christianity as being incapable of being forced on a
person. He understands the nature of Christianity from its “primitive” or earliest
foundations. What does he think is the essential teaching of Christianity?

- Open Penn reading – look at first principle of Christianity

That God, through Christ, hath placed a principle in every man, to inform him of his
duty, and to enable him to do it; and that those that live up to this principle are the
people of God, and those that live in disobedience to it, are not God's people,
whatever name they may bear, or profession they may make of religion. This is
their ancient, first, and standing testimony: with this they began, and this they bore,
and do bear to the world.

5. In Chapter One of Penn’s readings, there are some qualities that the Christian
“principle” possesses that make it resemble the notion of the moral law in Kant.
Which group of qualities best expresses this similarity?

- What was moral law in Kant? Maxim = universal (applies to everyone


equal; rational)

- Penn = principle of Christianity resembles these qualities

- Luther thought God was center  slowly being brought into human itself
(God isn’t simply dying, he’s being absorbed)

-#5… By this principle they understand something that is divine; and though in
man, yet not of man, but of God; and that it came from him, and leads to him all
those that will be led by it.
-That God, through Christ, hath placed a principle in every man, to inform him of his
duty, and to enable him to do it; and that those that live up to this principle are the
people of God, and those that live in disobedience to it, are not God's people,
whatever name they may bear, or profession they may make of religion. This is
their ancient, first, and standing testimony: with this they began, and this they bore,
and do bear to the world.
-This principle is, first, divine; secondly, universal; thirdly, efficacious; in that it gives
man, first, the knowledge of God and of himself, and therein a sight of his duty and
disobedience to it. Secondly, it begets a true sense and sorrow for sin in those that
seriously regard the convictions of it. Thirdly, it enables them to forsake sin, and
sanctifies from it. Fourthly, it applies God's mercies in Christ for the forgiveness of
sins that are past, unto justification, upon such sincere repentance and obedience.
Fifthly, it gives to the faithful, perseverance unto a perfect man, and the assurance
of blessedness, world without end.

6. In Locke’s Essay Concerning Understanding, Part I, Chapter 2, he writes that


“Virtue [is] generally approved, not because [it is] innate, but because [it is]
profitable. Hence naturally flows the great variety of opinions concerning moral
rules which are to be found among men, according to the different sorts of
happiness they have a prospect of, or propose to themselves ...” The idea
expressed here that virtue is approved of because it is “profitable” is almost the
direct opposite of another thinker we have read this semester. Which thinker is it,
and what does this thinker say about virtue that makes it the opposite of what John
Locke says?

- Everyone has a different moral principle that they follow; everyone is


totally different

- In a way, philosopher that disagrees accepts that as true BUT that


applies to us because of our different social conditions, psychological
backgrounds…  1 MORAL LAW?

Kant? This Holiness of Will is, however, nothing more than a practical idea,—an
infinite approximation towards which is all that is possible for man or any other
finite being, and which ideal standard is constantly held up to man by the Moral
Law, called for that reason itself Holy. Steadfastness in this continual advancement,
and Hope in the unchangeableness of a man’s resolves to do so, or, in one word,
virtue, is the utmost a finite reason can accomplish; and since this practical power is
developed by exercise, and known by observation and experience, it can never be
fully attained or secured, and the confident over-persuasion of such would militate
to the prejudice of morality.
-It is absolutely necessary that a person have estimated the high importance of
duty, the authority of the moral law, and the immediate unconditioned worth which
the observance of it imparts to man in his own eyes, antecedently to his being able
to feel that contentment springing from the consciousness of a moral character, or
that bitter reproach springing from the conviction of the want of it. This moral
felicity cannot precede the idea Obligation, much less found it; and it is requisite
that an individual have some notions of morality and honour before he can ever
figure to himself what is meant by such emotions. This, however, is so far from
inclining me to deny that a standing determination to act upon the representation of
the moral law, and unswerving constancy in doing so, will eventually establish this
feeling of self-contentment, that I rather deem it a duty to cultivate such a state of
mind, which state alone ought rigidly to be termed “a moral sense.” However, to
deduce thence the idea Duty is impossible, for we would require a feeling of the law
as such, so as to make that an object of sensation which can be represented to the
mind by reason singly; a statement which, if not a downright contradiction, goes to
substitute in the room of duty a mechanic play of refined and more subtilized
emotions, sometimes thwarting, sometimes harmonizing with the coarser feelings
of our system.
-This feeling (called the Moral Sense) is the pure product and effect of reason. It is
of no service in judging of conduct, nor yet in founding the moral law, but is a mere
spring, making the law man’s practical maxim in life; nor is there any name more
appropriate for so strange a feeling, which has no analogy to any pathological
emotion, but is entirely of its own kind, and seems to stand at the command of pure
practical reason only.

7. "But I moreover affirm, that all men are naturally in that state, and remain so, till
by their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society; and I
doubt not in the sequel of this discourse, to make it very clear.” This quotation, from
Locke’s Two Treatises, Part II, chapter 2, states quite clearly that every human
being is in a state of nature until he or she “by their own consents” enter into a
political society. He means that everyone accepts the government willingly, or if
they do not, they are in a state of nature. If they are in a state of nature, they are
free from the laws of the government, and have no obligation to accept them. We
see today that many people feel that their government is not legitimate and they
reclaim their rights in the state of nature. But what if we do feel our government is
legitimate? What does Locke say is the way that people, for example the people of
the United States, “by their own consents” leave the state of nature and enter into
the political society? (Hint: look at Sec. 119 in chap. 8).

- Everyone accepts laws of government; if they don’t, they are in a state of


nature

- We, today, are not in state of nature in respect to our government. Why?

8. John Locke believes that a government is legitimate only if people have


consented to create the government. People consent to form a government when
they agree to yield up their right to punish wrongdoers who have trespassed against
their rights. They yield up this right to magistrates who will judge and punish such
criminals. These magistrates represent the whole society. One of the problems that
Locke does not deal with effectively is why people feel attached to the whole
society or to humanity as a whole. Locke seems to think that society is really just a
group of individuals who find it more convenient to let the police and magistrates
punish criminals than to do it themselves. The philosophers Adam Smith and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau tried to fill in the picture of what binds people together in society.
Adam Smith developed the theory of “moral sentiments.” Which of the following
best expresses Smith’s explanation of how “moral sentiments” help to cement
society together?

- If people were born on deserted island, you would have no sense of


morality (get sense from others around you  learn from what they
approve/disapprove of  learn good and bad  make yourself pleasing in
their eyes = morality you follow)

- Want to please people and be loved by them


9. Rousseau also believed that moral sentiments connected people to society, but
he thought that as society developed these sentiments were corrupted. According
to Rousseau, how did the development of society lead to the corruption of the
innate moral sentiments of human beings?

- Very thing that makes us advance, is the very thing that makes us
corrupt the next step

- Come to learn about morality by seeing what other people think 


corrupts society itself

- Society becomes more and more unequal

- Inequality = less and less true to ourselves as we originally were

- Only works at looking at one another for disapproval/approval if


fundamentally we are all the same

- Holding up the inequality

10. One of the major principles of Enlightenment thinking was that God gave
humans reason and moral sentiments and these were enough to discover how to
worship God and how to lead a moral life. How did this view change the way that
people viewed the central tenet of Luther’s Christianity, namely, that only faith in
Christ can justify you (make you “right” with God)? (Thomas Paine can be taken as
a good example of the Deist belief system.)

- Difference between “natural religion” and what Luther is talking about

11. One of the major ideas of the Enlightenment is that God created human beings
in a way that they can be happy if they use their reason and follow their moral
sentiments. Enlightenment thinkers did not think humans were naturally depraved
(or inherited the original sin of Adam and Eve), but that humans were naturally
good and capable of being happy. This optimistic picture of human nature, however,
depended upon seeing nature as designed by God to give humans what they need
and not frustrate their desires. Also, it meant that if bad people seemed happy, God
would ultimately (perhaps after their death) punish them. And good people who
never became happy would be ultimately be rewarded by God. This optimism saw
God and humans and nature as being essentially harmonious, even though things
weren’t quite perfect in this life. Immanuel Kant believed that this optimism was not
really based on solid evidence. Nature seemed indifferent to humans and not
designed to make them happy. There was no evidence of an afterlife. And even if
there were an afterlife, why did God let people hurt other people in this life if he
intended to correct it later? Why did he let people have free will to disobey him if he
was so interested in their happiness? Immanuel Kant throws out the idea that
humans should try to be happy and he also rejects the idea that God has obviously
designed nature to make humans happy. If happiness is not the point of human
existence, what is (according to Kant)?

- General deistic thinking


- This side of world (nature and laws, nothing here that has anything to do
with the other side (who we really are)

- World wasn’t designed to make us moral and right

-- Lecture today 03/03 = not being happy, it’s being…?

12. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were
written by men who were influenced by Enlightenment philosophy. When they wrote
that humans were “born equal” and “endowed with certain inalienable rights” such
as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” they showed their debt to
Enlightenment thinking. Perhaps because they were Englishmen, the Founding
Fathers drew more from John Locke than Jean-Jacques Rousseau. How does the
emphasis on the rights of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” show their debt to
Locke and their difference from Rousseau? (Hint: Two major values are at work in all
Enlightenment thinking, individual freedom and the equality of all humans. Different
thinkers emphasize one or the other more.)

- Ask yourself, which side did Rousseau become most interested in?

-Rousseau = Main Idea: If one simply attends to their inner life one will discover the
‘soul’—that is one discovers with one’s ‘inner sense’ a feeling of ‘freedom’ or a self-
active principle within oneself. People who do not recognize this principle are like
those who are tone-deaf to the beauty and harmony of music.
- Argument for Freedom: “No material being can be self-active, and I perceive
that I am so”
- “Man is, therefore, a free agent and as such animated by an immaterial
substance…”
-Locke

13. One of the themes we have been exploring is how people became more and
more unwilling to allow slavery in their society. This anti-slavery movement ran up
against the importance of the right to own property that was so basic to Locke’s
philosophy. One could say that there was a conflict between the principle of liberty
(right to liberty) and the principle of property. Human beings are not property, but
they can own property. What makes a human not a piece of property? Luther would
say it was his capacity to become a Christian (free in Christ). But because this was
an inner, spiritual condition that had nothing to do with the will of the individual,
this did not stop an African who converted to Christianity from being owned and told
what to do with his will. Locke said a person could be owned if he had attempted to
kill another human and was permitted to live on as a slave rather than being put to
death. This limits slavery more than Luther did. The next step was to reject trading
in slaves because their capture in Africa was considered unjust. But the idea that
slavery is in itself an evil institution under any circumstances requires a new
conception of the true nature of the human being. It was Rousseau and Kant who
helped to form this new conception. What did they say about the true nature of the
human being that would show that slavery is immoral?

- Emphasized individual rights

- Inequality = rights to more property than others


- Truth is = you’re saved in Christ

-- Today’s lecture 03/03 = have sense of what Kant is saying  impossible


for me to simply treat another human being as if they were ONLY on this
side of the world; simply machine or tool…?

-Kant = To be really free, to not be a machine, is to act according to a law that you
legislate for yourself. (self-governance)
-LockeRousseau = "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks
himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they." This is
opening of his Social Contract
-Rousseau=the same thing that makes human human also corrupt them.The
consciousness of freedom makes me sensitive to being a "me", a single individual.
The compassion for others, makes me sensitive to how others treat "me."
-Thus everything takes place according to the natural order; and, whatever may be
the result of such frequent and precipitate revolutions, no one man has reason to
complain of the injustice of another, but only of his own ill-fortune or indiscretion.
-In the end, everyone is equally nothing. We are all just trying to look like we are
good, and great, and we have forgotten what real goodness is, the freedom we
share together under the law and the compassion that binds us to one another in
sympathy. Instead, we are all just looking to "friended" by as many people as
possible. The difference between rich and poor is the root of the evil. It has nothing
to do with reality.
7. "But I moreover affirm, that all men are naturally in that state, and remain so, till
by their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society; and I
doubt not in the sequel of this discourse, to make it very clear.” This quotation, from
Locke’s Two Treatises, Part II, chapter 2, states quite clearly that every human
being is in a state of nature until he or she “by their own consents” enter into a
political society. He means that everyone accepts the government willingly, or if
they do not, they are in a state of nature. If they are in a state of nature, they are
free from the laws of the government, and have no obligation to accept them. We
see today that many people feel that their government is not legitimate and they
reclaim their rights in the state of nature. But what if we do feel our government is
legitimate? What does Locke say is the way that people, for example the people of
the United States, “by their own consents” leave the state of nature and enter into
the political society? (Hint: look at Sec. 119 in chap. 8).

Sec. 119. Every man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being
able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent; it is
to be considered, what shall be understood to be a sufficient declaration of a man's
consent, to make him subject to the laws of any government. There is a common
distinction of an express and a tacit consent, which will concern our present case.
No body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society,
makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government. The
difficulty is, what ought to be looked upon as a tacit consent, and how far it binds,
i.e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to
any government, where he has made no expressions of it at all. And to this I say,
that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of
the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and
is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during
such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his possession be of
land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or
whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in effect, it
reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that
government.

- Everyone accepts laws of government; if they don’t, they are in a state of nature
- We, today, are not in state of nature in respect to our government

-Overall, he is saying that once someone partakes in any of the constructs of an


established environment that has rules, laws etc he/she is fully submerging
themselves into the government and must therefore abide by all the rules of said
government.

8. John Locke believes that a government is legitimate only if people have


consented to create the government. People consent to form a government when
they agree to yield up their right to punish wrongdoers who have trespassed against
their rights. They yield up this right to magistrates who will judge and punish such
criminals. These magistrates represent the whole society. One of the problems that
Locke does not deal with effectively is why people feel attached to the whole
society or to humanity as a whole. Locke seems to think that society is really just a
group of individuals who find it more convenient to let the police and magistrates
punish criminals than to do it themselves. The philosophers Adam Smith and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau tried to fill in the picture of what binds people together in society.
Adam Smith developed the theory of “moral sentiments.” Which of the following
best expresses Smith’s explanation of how “moral sentiments” help to cement
society together?

- If people were born on deserted island, you would have no sense of morality (get
sense from others around you ◊ learn from what they approve/disapprove of ◊ learn
good and bad ◊ make yourself pleasing in their eyes = morality you follow)
- Want to please people and be loved by them

Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments:


"Sympathy" was the term Smith used for the feeling of these moral sentiments. It was the
feeling with the passions of others. It operated through a logic of mirroring, in which a spectator
imaginatively reconstructed the experience of the person he watches. Sympathy arose from an
innate desire to identify with the emotions of others. It could lead people to strive to maintain
good relations with their fellow human beings and provide the basis both for specific benevolent
acts and for the general social order. Thus was formed within the beast the psychological basis
for the desire to obey natural laws. The Theory of Moral Sentiments culminated in man as self-
interested and self-commanded. Individual freedom, according to Smith, was rooted in self-
reliance, the ability of an individual to pursue his self-interest while commanding himself based
on the principles of natural law. Smith rejected the idea that Man was capable of forming moral
judgements beyond a limited sphere of activity, again centered around his own self-interest

9. Rousseau also believed that moral sentiments connected people to society, but
he thought that as society developed these sentiments were corrupted. According
to Rousseau, how did the development of society lead to the corruption of the
innate moral sentiments of human beings?

- Very thing that makes us advance, is the very thing that makes us corrupt the
next step
- Come to learn about morality by seeing what other people think ◊ corrupts society
itself
- Society becomes more and more unequal
- Inequality = less and less true to ourselves as we originally were
- Only works at looking at one another for disapproval/approval if fundamentally we
are all the same
- Holding up the inequality

-As human society grew, the inequality of talent did as well. Those who were more
talented at gaining property (and all the things that came with said property) then
gained power while those less talented had to work in other ways to acquire
property. Therefore, it was necessary for men to appear as they were not. Had to
lie, cheat etc. to get what they wanted. However, there was no top tier. A wealthy
man had to rely on the services of those below him and the poor man had to rely on
the assistance of those above him. With this growing wealth and population there
was no chance a commonwealth would form, so independent nations were created,
and there is no compassion between nations. Prejudice, warn etc. in the end led to
the corruption of innate moral sentiments of human beings.

10. One of the major principles of Enlightenment thinking was that God gave
humans reason and moral sentiments and these were enough to discover how to
worship God and how to lead a moral life. How did this view change the way that
people viewed the central tenet of Luther’s Christianity, namely, that only faith in
Christ can justify you (make you “right” with God)? (Thomas Paine can be taken as
a good example of the Deist belief system.)

-Paine believed humans are born with the choice of either being good or evil and
they are held responsible for that choice
-Luther’s liberty is now made into a political principle
-Difference between “natural religion” and what Luther is talking about
-His duty to God, which every man must feel; and with respect to his neighbor, to do
as he would be done by.
-rights are all intellectual rights (rights of the mind) and therefore religion is one of
them

11. One of the major ideas of the Enlightenment is that God created human beings
in a way that they can be happy if they use their reason and follow their moral
sentiments. Enlightenment thinkers did not think humans were naturally depraved
(or inherited the original sin of Adam and Eve), but that humans were naturally
good and capable of being happy. This optimistic picture of human nature, however,
depended upon seeing nature as designed by God to give humans what they need
and not frustrate their desires. Also, it meant that if bad people seemed happy, God
would ultimately (perhaps after their death) punish them. And good people who
never became happy would be ultimately be rewarded by God. This optimism saw
God and humans and nature as being essentially harmonious, even though things
weren’t quite perfect in this life. Immanuel Kant believed that this optimism was not
really based on solid evidence. Nature seemed indifferent to humans and not
designed to make them happy. There was no evidence of an afterlife. And even if
there were an afterlife, why did God let people hurt other people in this life if he
intended to correct it later? Why did he let people have free will to disobey him if he
was so interested in their happiness? Immanuel Kant throws out the idea that
humans should try to be happy and he also rejects the idea that God has obviously
designed nature to make humans happy. If happiness is not the point of human
existence, what is (according to Kant)?

- General deistic thinking


- This side of world (nature and laws, nothing here that has anything to do with the
other side (who we really are)
- World wasn’t designed to make us moral and right
-- Lecture today 03/03 = not being happy, it’s being…?
- If the purpose of life were just to achieve happiness, then we would all seek
pleasure and gratification and hope that it would lead to happiness. The problem is
that happiness is not totally within our power to achieve; to a large extent,
happiness is a matter of luck. Consequently, being happy and being good are two
different things
- The good will is the only good without qualification
- The good will is a will that acts for the sake of duty, as a "good-in-itself”

12. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were
written by men who were influenced by Enlightenment philosophy. When they wrote
that humans were “born equal” and “endowed with certain inalienable rights” such
as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” they showed their debt to
Enlightenment thinking. Perhaps because they were Englishmen, the Founding
Fathers drew more from John Locke than Jean-Jacques Rousseau. How does the
emphasis on the rights of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” show their debt to
Locke and their difference from Rousseau? (Hint: Two major values are at work in all
Enlightenment thinking, individual freedom and the equality of all humans. Different
thinkers emphasize one or the other more.)

- Ask yourself, which side did Rousseau become most interested in? – individual
freedom

Locke – equality of all humans


The state of nature:

"A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one
having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of
the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of
nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst
another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all
should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on
him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and
sovereignty."
13. One of the themes we have been exploring is how people became more and
more unwilling to allow slavery in their society. This anti-slavery movement ran up
against the importance of the right to own property that was so basic to Locke’s
philosophy. One could say that there was a conflict between the principle of liberty
(right to liberty) and the principle of property. Human beings are not property, but
they can own property. What makes a human not a piece of property? Luther would
say it was his capacity to become a Christian (free in Christ). But because this was
an inner, spiritual condition that had nothing to do with the will of the individual,
this did not stop an African who converted to Christianity from being owned and told
what to do with his will. Locke said a person could be owned if he had attempted to
kill another human and was permitted to live on as a slave rather than being put to
death. This limits slavery more than Luther did. The next step was to reject trading
in slaves because their capture in Africa was considered unjust. But the idea that
slavery is in itself an evil institution under any circumstances requires a new
conception of the true nature of the human being. It was Rousseau and Kant who
helped to form this new conception. What did they say about the true nature of the
human being that would show that slavery is immoral?

- Emphasized individual rights


- Inequality = rights to more property than others
- Truth is = you’re saved in Christ
-- Today’s lecture 03/03 = have sense of what Kant is saying ◊ impossible for me to
simply treat another human being as if they were ONLY on this side of the world;
simply machine or tool…?