Kant believed that to achieve enlightenment the individual would need the freedom to think freely for himself and the ability to manifest his own well-reasoned ideas. From this belief a concern arises; Is it always acceptable to allow people to express their reason, or are there situations in which one's personal reasoning should not influence one's actions? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Consider a person employed to maintain the welfare of the public, such as a firefighter. If a firefighter is allowed to operate solely in accordance with his or her internal logic, the firefighter may cause unintended consequences. The firefighter may find it unethical to remove the roof of a burning car without the express consent of the vehicle owner. He then decides to express his reasoning and stop removing car roofs without permission. A potential consequence of his reasoning could occur if a passenger became stuck in a vehicle and was unable to communicate with firefighters. Following her reasoning, the firefighter would not be able to access the passenger and save him, since she does not have explicit consent to remove the roof of the car. Kant would argue that in this situation, the individual should not be allowed to express his or her ideas. This does not imply that in all situations individuals should not be allowed to lead change in the world around them. There are cases where someone's internal reasoning should change public policy. A police officer who notices unethical standard police procedures should be encouraged to attempt to change the procedure. In some cases, it is clear that the individual must be able to express his or her concerns about how society operates, and in other cases he or she must be forced to operate in a way that may go against his or her personal beliefs. Within Kant's explanation of enlightenment, he provides two useful definitions to distinguish between the two scenarios. Private reason is a limited form of reason intended to be used by people operating within society. In the example above, the firefighter is tasked with cutting car roofs, regardless of his personal opinion on the matter. Therefore, in doing his work he exercises private reason. Public reason is the form of unlimited reason with which one can address society with concerns. In the above examples, the police officer who publicly expresses his concerns about unethical police procedures is exercising public reason. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Pure Reason refers Kant to a form of reason whose axioms are a priori principles, or principles obtainable through rational thought. Kant's goal with the critique of pure reason is to attempt to reach a verdict on the possibility of metaphysics. Kant believed that our ability to think was intrinsically 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. It was Kant's belief that to use pure reasoning one must first understand where it should be applied and what its limits are. Therefore, to use “pure reason,” one must know what pure reason is capable of. This is the spirit of Kant's criticism. Kant stated that pure reason, 93, 102992.