More Kant

So Kant thinks that we should always do our duty.  Ah but there is a problem in the translation of duty from the German pflicht. The Germans have a dozen words for duty, while we have duty and obligation. To be human is to do human things. Do human things is more in line with pflicht than duty, but the art of translation is not an exact science, more of an art. Perhaps we should read only interpretations, not translations.

All human actions can be broken into two groups, the categorical imperative or hypothetical imperative; required or choice. But which decisions are which? So we know how to deal with categorical, but not what is in that group. There is a concept that all decisions dealing with others must be moral; but there is also freedom of person to choose... and these seem to conflict.

Consider the abortion issue; when we universalize just abortion, abortion can be said to be wrong, but when we universalize the free choice to chose abortion, it appears to right. These are opposites, even though I have worded one in the negative and one in the positive. So the categorical imperative can be played with to give what ever result we wish to get... some test. So when we add freedom that humans must have, that must be a human right, it becomes clear, nobody has the right to force anyone to do anything... illogical or religious.

So a good will or intent, freedom and eudomonia, joy of satisfaction from the Greek, are the basic human needs, that we can all self impose on ourselves. How different is this from the Stoics or Buddhists? Not much. The order of priority different, and perhaps the words used to describe the same feelings.