3. Deontology = Human Right, Socialism, and Nihilism
In late 18th century, the most influential but extremely controversial ethical principle was invented by a very eccentric philosopher called Immanuel Kant. He had learnt from the ethical principle of John Loch which claimed that the ethical imagination is dynamic and goes beyond the reality of our currently living world. Then he developed and expanded the ethical principle further deeper and more complex.
He tried to detach ethics from natural science, economics (Social Science), and any popular philosophies (Kant called all ethics theories having existed before his "the pure philosophy" which merely exist to deserve what people and/or an powerful moral entrepreneur seek to fulfil their desire) in order to establish one legitimate philosophy called the "Pure Ethics" which truly contributes our humans' well-being. Kant claimed that there shall be something equivalent to the mathematical axiom for ethics which can objectively determines the validity of logical inferences in ethical theories and the righteousness of humans' action in our daily life. In order to judge whether these inferences and our actions are ethically valid or invalid, ethics needs an axiom which can self contradict these inferences.
Kant attempted to create this fundamental principle which judges the validity of our knowledge, action, and logical inference, and then our world really is. He called it the Categorical Imperative which insists that there is always something we must or at least ought to do regardless of what our experience tells, what logic implies, how we are pleased and pained, what the others want, and how the reality shows and treats us. He affirmed that the Categorical Imperative shall exist as the ethical fundamental principle which leads each of us and our world to be the truly virtuous. Furthermore, this principle is an objective measurement which aids us to discover and draw the image various unknown truth of our world and the cosmos. Then, according to this newly invented ethical principle, our own knowledge can be biased, the cause of our actions is merely hypothetical, i.e. not categorical, which means ethically nonsense, logic is a useless tool, and the reality of our world we are currently living can be merely an illusion or against how the world should really be.
First of all, Kant was sceptical about knowledge itself. The knowledge gained from experiences can be easily based by each human-being's own subjective interpretation of the experience. The only objective knowledge of any experience is the immediate memory at a moment. Nonetheless, this memory soon becomes modified by our own subjective prejudice after a few second passes.
The feeling of fear induces human-beings to believe in a superstition whose existence cannot be objectively proven by the fundamentals of physical/natural existences such as vertical axis, horizontal axis, altitude, and time. Kant strongly denied the existence of God in the physical world because God cannot exist in the formula based on these fundamentals of the natural world. John Locke put emphasis on the possibility of existence because the notion of distance and power is infinite so that God cannot be simply discovered in the natural world. By contrast, Kant completely separated the imaginable figure cannot be possible if it is deviated from the axiom. The infinity exists in the mathematical formula but not in the natural world.
Wisdom and history tend to be taught by those who have the power to indoctrinate the others with by means of their own favour. Before this understanding became popular, majority of people believed that the formation of governance and the history of nations were naturally created, and they were naturally born to participate in the function of these social structures differently owing to their innate ability, blood relation, and ambition. Nevertheless, since knowing the knowledge about history can be biased, these histories of social structure can be also hypothetically constructed by means of an interest of the few powerful minorities such as monarchies, moral entrepreneurs such as religions, and lack of knowing the true duty we all human-beings must or at least ought to accomplish.
Natural Sciences are utterly subjective even though majority of natural scientists claim it to be objective. These natural scientists persist that their discovery and their invention are derived from their scientific experiment. However, in the most of cases, the fact is that their scientific experiment is derived from their discovery, and their invention tends to be created from an accident. These scientists also deny the existence of some new discovery when it does not fit in with what their theory claims it to be. They often failed to invent a new practical thing or theory whenever they attempt to innovate a new technology by following their supporting scientific theories. What are introduced as their new inventions are only a few of those which are accidentally found to be able to use practically. Although, these scientists may say their perseverant efforts and their scientific knowledge induce them to achieve in discovery and technological innovation, they often encounter with their success when some accident, which can be called the miracle, happens. In addition, their knowledge is what they interpreted the phenomena of this natural world by means of their favour and fashion.
Kant was highly sceptical about logics itself which is used to infer something not known from either our experience or knowledge. The reason is that the formulas of logical inference are not based on something like a mathematical axiom which enables logic to objectively self-contradict itself. Therefore, there is nothing which can verify logic's validity, and then the reasoning derived from a logical inference is merely a hypothetical which is an ethically nonsense.
Kant explained that mathematics has been an only objective academic science because the axiom enables it to self contradict and verify its validity itself. The reason why mathematics is objective is that the axiom is a rigorous but very subjectively determined rule. This is the rule which mathematicians decide to use in order to create a truly objective science. Therefore, their strong intensive subjective will induces them to create an objective science like mathematics.
Kant aspired to establish the pure ethics as another objective science as mathematics. This fundamental principle of the pure ethics has to be intensively subjective as much as the axiom. As mathematicians agree to create a rigorous but intensively subjective rule to maintain mathematics as objective with their subjective will, he attempted to create a rigorous but intensively subjective fundamental principle. According to Kant's anticipation, this fundamental principle of the pure ethics should be able to objectively self-contradict our actions in our life and our knowledge about this world, and then verify their validity themselves by following this fundamental principle. He insisted that only the legitimate validity of the reasoning based on logical inference can be the fundamental principle of the pure ethics.
As expressed in the Venn diagram above, the validity of the existence of A (A=ℝ\0), no A (denoted A=0),
(E.g. the infinity ( ∞ )), and 
(E.g. The complex number) depends merely on verification by the axiom denoted as " α " here. So, the validity of these existences can be only verified when α, the axiom, verifies. This principle regards that the reality, which we can see, imagine, and feel, in this world, is not necessarily always valid to be the truth as explained in the previous paragraphs. So, the reality (Our knowledge about) is not relevant to our reasoning for living. This implies that some impossibility or unimaginable things might be possible when the fundamental principle verify the validity of their possibility even though both observation and logic deny their possibility. An illusion might be truth and become an alternative reality meanwhile an reality we know can be an illusion and fake. This theory is called as the Human-Right theory (Also called "Political-Liberalism" by John Rawls), and Kant is called as the father of Human-Right. As same as Natural-Right, Human-Right regards that all human-beings have the naturally endowed rights which should prevail for all humans under any circumstances. The difference between these theories of right is that Natural-Right regards providing people with right is conditional whereas Human-Right regards it must be unconditional. Regardless of the limitation of resource and technology available, there is an action we must do even though whatever the expected consequence turns up to be. Because this theory regards that any estimate based on either experience or logical inference is hypothetical which implies ethically nonsense according to this theory. It commands human-beings to follow what they must or at least ought to do whatever their given condition is in order to lead all human-beings together to accomplish in providing all of them with what the categorical imperative, the fundamental principle of this ethics theory, suggests.
Natural-Right suggests to offer an equality of opportunity and equal distribution of the basic necessities to the all. By contrast, this theory insists on providing some degree of equality in outcome distributed among all people. It regards that, in order to truly accomplish the equality of opportunity, it requires not only ensuring the equal distribution of basic necessities but also the collective responsibility among all people to conduct all people to be the good human-beings. It puts emphasis on ensuring the least fortunate member of the community of humans to avoid being impoverished and being wicked. Therefore, fortunate members of the entire human community must be obliged to contribute some proportion of their income and properties to the others, and there has to be a sufficiently big proportion of publicly shared properties among all people in this community.
Furthermore, this theory claims that the community of human-beings must have an universal moral duty to conduct all human-beings to be the morally right track of their life. Kant was also sceptical about the freedom of choice. He argued that the true freedom for human-beings shall be the freedom of living, and the freedom of choice restricts the true freedom. Because this theory regards that human-beings have to make their choice which the categorical imperative suggests to choose, and they may make a mistake of choosing the right pass, there always needs to be restriction on the hypothetical freedom in order to guide them to the true freedom. This moral error correction process should not forced to be done by a violence of moral entrepreneur; It has to be encouraged by the reason based on the fundamental principle of the pure ethics which is called the categorical imperative. An order by violence is against the categorical imperative because it allows human-beings to be cruel and vicious when any violent action is permitted.
This theory regards highly of the cultural and ethnic pluralism which admits that all of human-beings can keep their own unique life style following each different custom of their own culture. However, it insist on imposing an universal moral law on all humans and their communities in order to establish a harmony among all different kinds of humans and their different life styles. It suggests that this universal moral law has to be a moderator/guardian of their community so that it must be fair (By means of this theory implies) and neither religiously influenced nor based on one particular cultural standard. This universal law has to be secular because it has to be religiously and culturally intermediate. All in all, this pluralism is permitted to exist under one unified universal guardianship by the a secularist law enforcement agent. Meanwhile Kant denied the existence of God and condemned religious teachings, he seemed to have established one God-less monotheism and the moral teaching which is a resemblance to Christian moral teaching. This characteristics has attracted many individuals who were disappointed by Christianity for some reason, and provided them with an alternative belief which is different from Christianity but whose characteristics is similar to Christianity.
Kant only hoped that human-beings can only achieve in aspiring to keep acting according to what the categorical imperative implies to. Nevertheless, he did not expect that they can always follow what the categorical imperative suggests them because human-beings are not perfectly rational, and their surrounding environment often spontaneously affects the situation to be difficult for accomplishing in their rational action.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel modified Kantian theory to be a furthermore idealistic and a progressivist ideology. Meanwhile Kant did not expect humans and their world to be perfectly rationally oriented by perfectly following what the categorical imperative suggests, Hegel assumed that humans can gradually become able to accomplish in establishing what the categorical imperative suggests. Hegel applied his believing Luther Christianity, the Nordic Liberal Christian, to his own ethical theories hinted from Kantian philosophy. Unlike Kant's atheist view, Hegel indicated that the fundamental principle which Kant taught was actually the way God expects humans to be. So, he explained that, as the development of humans themselves and their world progresses, they gradually become evolved to what God expect them to be, and their world becomes more likely to be the heaven i.e. the utopia. Karl Marx interpreted Hegelian philosophy and historical view, and he invented his own political philosophy claiming that socialism is the necessary step to the utopia.
There is another big stream of Kant's influence which is totally different from Hegelian perspective but based on Kant's principle. These philosophies are different from Kantian perspectives but they are heavily influenced by Kantian philosophical principle.
Pragmatism took over the perspective which regards that there should be an axiom verifying the validity of both knowledge from experiences and answers induced from logical inferences, and justifying the righteousness of any decision making. However, it focuses on a much shorter perspective than Kant's and Hegel's philosophy. Kant and Hegel believed that there shall be a universal principle which prevails at any times, in any place, and on any occasion. By contrast, Pragmatism only regards that there are various different principles across different times, places, and occasions. It attempted to create a practical philosophy which combines both the idealistic philosophical rationale and the natural scientific analysis which Kant described as hypothetical. For example, Mount Everest is considered to be high and big by means of earth geological view whilst it is considered to be short and small by means of astrological view. So, how things are measured varies across a different fundamental applied to any measurement. Pragmatism approves a hypothetical decision making process as long as a fundamental principle basing this decision making process verifies it. Pragmatist ethical principle has encouraged a specialisation of academic subjects since it became influential. Before its influence, academics studied various different subjects and dissolved sets of the knowledge into their own philosophical theory which was used for reasoning their own cause and belief in their life. Nevertheless, since both Kantian philosophy, and then Pragmatism, started influencing over the world, the reasoning process of our own cause and belief in our life has started being seen as nonsense, and majority of academics have no longer pursued their own cause nor created their own unique philosophy. Since then, majority of academics have specialised in studying one particular subject by following the principle given from their chosen academic. The fundamental principle for each subject is determined by an academic peer group, and it has become taboo to deviate from this already created principle verified by this peer-assessment.
There is a philosophical theory, called Logical-Positivism, which deeply regards highly of natural science and a hypothetical decision making process. It is yet under a strong influence from Kant who was sceptical about natural science and condemned a hypothetical decision making process. The common perspective between Kantian philosophy and Logical-Positivism is the perspective regarding that there is an absolute universal principle which verifies the validity of experience, knowledge, and logical inference, and determines the righteousness of any justification and decision making process. Logical-Positivism also copied the idea of denying not only the existence of God but also believing our own cause, and described that having our own unique cause, belief, reason, and ideology as pathetic. This philosophy describes senses as merely biological functions and/or illusions. So, owing to this philosophical perspective, knowledge from experiences and inference, feeling, and sense of reasoning and belief have to be examined by a scientific experiment and theory in order to verify their validity.
This caused individuals to become apathetic to hold their own cause and reason, and then nihilism has spread as epidemic since then. I rather follow Aristotle's perspective which regards that we constantly suffer from ignorance, and then we have never known the absolute truth or principle. Kant and all those influenced by him started arguing that ignorance is sin, and there shall be a measurement which leads us to know the absolute truth. The converse effect of these previously mentioned philosophical theories of pursuing the absolute truth has created Nihilism which regards both the truth and the reality are nonsense because these people are simply taught to think there is only one absolute reality = truth. But, they become too tired of pursing it, and then become apathetic about pursing it even though they still remain the existence of an abstract image of the absolute truth in their mind. Furthermore, they are also already too castrated to have a pride to create and emphasise on their own interpretation of the reality. Then, they have eventually run away to the illusion.
All in all, those who are influenced by Kant always say "But, that's not true", and treating anything challenging the mainstream perspective as deviants.