Kant emphasizes the need for human freedom and discretion and the need to judge for oneself in religious and secular matters. There is a need for independence. However, Kant did not suggest a total rejection of authority. This is a common position for agnosticism. Kant suggests that there is a need to reconstruct ultimate reality by applying mundane categories to it. This is an attempt through the mind to create what Kant believes to be the real world. In this way, Kant attempted a synthesis between English empiricism and continental rationalism. The skeptic concludes that beliefs that fall outside of human experience cannot be justified. On the one hand, the rationalists affirm that the factual truths of what exists and what does not exist can be established by reason alone. Kant holds that everything that is manifest is rationally justifiable and everything that is ultimate is rationally indefensible. According to Kant, the mind conditions everything it finds through its Forms of Intuition and Categories of Comprehension.
Kant tries to draw a line between what is an appearance and the ultimate reality, but in doing so he is unsuccessful. To pose between what is appearance and what is reality is to recognize that one knows the ultimate reality. In other words, to draw a line, the line must first be crossed, which Kant categorically denies that he ever did.
Motive for obedience
In order to eliminate or substantially reduce the vice of greed through the orientation of the social enterprise, many theories have been proposed to state the responsibility of various criteria and even a code or institutionalization of ethics. This is all very well, however, one has to admit that these soft laws are quite different from hard laws (former criminal law, in Malaysia we have a Penal Code) which ordinary people know well that in the case of the latter, such as one that if disobeyed results in punishment. There may even be provisions in such codes for punishment if the ethical codes are not obeyed, even if members of the public do not clearly see the need or reason for obeying such codes on a positive note (apart from the common fear of punishment), they do not there would be a lot of progress in terms of improving social or moral values in general. This is especially true when the enforcement of such codes, when disobeyed, is weak. One can even take the example of the lack of application of tough laws in a situation of disobedience, as an example, that is, the example of riots and looting in other parts of the world, when the application of the law by the police takes time to arrive. by.
In short, a justification or reason (ethical reason) must be found for the society to obey the codes of conduct. This is especially true in Malaysian society, where customary law or generally imposed law is Western in origin. No doubt Malaysia has developed its own law since independence, but being a former colony of the UK and the fact that the adversarial court system here is a heritage of English prowess, we cannot deny the fact that the legal and ethical culture at work is of western origin. We in the East often perceive this as a difficulty and a contrast to our Eastern upbringing, as English laws have a strong Judeo-Christian undertone. Malaysian Muslims have in their culture a strong need to obey moral codes, as a large number of laws (although they are still sometimes bound by customary law when faced with felonies or offenses against the state) are laws of Shariah and are therefore strongly rooted in their moral and cultural background.