Kant believed that for enlightenment to be achieved, the individual would need the freedom to think freely for themselves and the ability to manifest their ideas well reasoned. A concern arises from this belief; Is it always okay to allow people to demonstrate their reason, or are there situations where personal reasoning should not influence their actions? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Let's take the example of a person employed to maintain the welfare of the public, for example a firefighter. If a firefighter is allowed to operate only according to his internal logic, he could have unintended consequences. The firefighter might think it is unethical to remove the roof from a burning car without the explicit consent of the vehicle owner. She therefore decides to show her reason, and to stop dismantling car roofs without authorization. A potential consequence of his reasoning may arise if a passenger is trapped in a vehicle and unable to communicate with the firefighter. Following his reasoning, the firefighter would not be able to access the passenger and save her, because she does not have his explicit consent to remove the roof of the car. Kant would argue that in this situation the individual should not be allowed to manifest their ideas. This does not imply that in all situations individuals should not be allowed to spearhead change in the world around them. There are cases where internal reasoning should change public policy. A police officer who notices an unethical police procedure should be encouraged to attempt to change the procedure. In some cases it is clear that the individual must be able to express their concerns about the functioning of society and in other cases they must be able to express their concerns. forced to operate in a way that may go against his personal beliefs. In Kant's explanation of enlightenment, he provides two useful definitions to differentiate the two scenarios. Private reason is a limited form of reason intended for use by people who operate within society. In the example above, the firefighter is given the duty of cutting the roofs off the cars, regardless of his personal opinion on the matter. Therefore, in doing one's work, one exercises private reason. Public reason is the unlimited form of reason by which one can address society with its concerns. In the examples above, the police officer who publicly expresses concerns about unethical police procedures exercises public reason. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay By pure reason, Kant refers to a form of reason whose axioms are a priori principles, or principles obtainable through rational thought. Kant's goal in criticizing pure reason is to attempt to reach a verdict on the possibility of metaphysics. Kant believed that our ability to think was inherently limited and was concerned about the use of pure reason in areas where it should not be applied. Kant offered a critique of pure reason that would address this concern. Kant believed that to use pure reasoning, one must first understand where it should be applied and what its limitations are. Therefore, to use “pure reason,” one must know what pure reason is capable of. This is the spirit of Kant's critique. Kant said, 93, 102992.