The connection between the shared and personal knowledge of communities within a religion, a science, or more generally a belief system has systematically governed all aspects of life. From the tiny decisions of picking out an outfit in the morning to unplugging a relative, our decisions are based on shared knowledge or the personal knowledge we have accumulated. Belief itself is defined as the often unsupported support of an idea. In this case the belief used in making decisions about shared or personal knowledge can be used to justify one's actions. According to Kant, our decisions are considered moral only when they follow his categorical imperative or universal moral law that dictates that our selfish desires do not take priority. Moving on to a discussion of specific shared knowledge, I will talk about the medical community, which like other scientific communities is connected through shared knowledge regarding the understanding of the human body. From Kant's theory of “respect for persons,” it is stated that we are more than a physical entity but are also persons, conceived as autonomous rational moral agents, who have intrinsic moral value. This value of people makes them worthy of moral respect. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIn this article we will discuss whether our belief in shared knowledge and how the belief that one's shared or personal knowledge trumps that of another due to their authority in certain fields. The position taken will state that, although shared knowledge can evolve over time and seems the most logical thing, even according to Kant the intrinsic value of an individual and its implications cannot be ignored under any conditions. To begin with, Kant's moral theory serves as a defense of individual thought in the face of strong belief systems based on history and logic, namely the scientific community and the religious community. Through their further specification under each group, they each draw their shared knowledge from a collection of individuals and have formed a justification for their actions. Like utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant's moral theory is founded on a theory of intrinsic value. But where the utilitarian considers happiness, conceived as pleasure and the absence of pain as that which has intrinsic value, Kant believes that the only thing that has moral value in itself is good will. The communities mentioned above fail to recognize happiness as anything more than a chemical reaction or a spiritual feeling. They generalized the happiness of the entire group rather than through a consideration of the individual. Within the medical community, medicine cannot exist without the use of bioethics to dictate which actions in the name of science are justified by something other than pure empirical evidence. For example, the decision to donate an organ without complications would seem to a doctor to be logical if the patient is capable of doing so. However, for the patient, they may have a variety of factors that prevent them from doing so, such as religion, emotions (fear), or personal interest in their health. This last reason contradicts the Kantian idea of ​​an IC as an objective, rationally necessary, and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desire or inclination we might have to the contrary. So in this case the ability to donate an organ is a completely altruistic act that would save a life, but choosing to refrain from doing so only because of your personal knowledgewhere a family member may have died donating should have no bearing on your decision. Bioethics is evolving to include philosophy in the consideration of the non-physical “self” within the human body. Instead of viewing emotions as a human response, scientists have reduced emotions and mental states as a release of chemicals into the body. The associated bioethics has moved away from a discussion of only the conduct of doctors but also of the practices themselves. who deem the patient inferior in matters regarding the patient's different body, which gives rise to issues such as informed consent which we will talk about later. Through the lens of their shared knowledge, the body is seen solely as a physical entity, similar to most living organisms except with a higher level of sophistication. Some philosophers and doctors have interpreted this to mean that their shared knowledge trumps consideration of the patient's personal knowledge. The doctor takes the dominant role in a seemingly equal partnership/trust between doctor and patient. The root of this shared knowledge comes from the natural sciences in which the individual's happiness prevailed over his well-being. The personal knowledge of that doctor is overtaken by this shared knowledge, and the personal knowledge of that same patient is ignored by the apparent authority figure that is the doctor. Doctor or doctor so to speak here does not simply refer to an individual but rather to the position that dictates what is right and what is wrong for the human body. The patient becomes an inferior voice in their own care. To clarify, the scientific community and the medical community can be used interchangeably in the context of apparently basing their decisions on the same shared knowledge that prioritizes physical well-being over happiness, obviously in terms of happiness utilitarianism. The arguments that arise question the extent to which doctors can be considered authority figures in public health without taking into account the personal knowledge of their wards, the patients. I will then use Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) to explore Kant's formulations of moral theory as a means of justifying the tendency of physicians to prioritize their shared knowledge over their personal knowledge. Through science physical symptoms can be relieved without considering all aspects of happiness. I revisit how happiness can be defined by both utilitarianism and Kantian ethics and come to conclude that, although shared knowledge is capable of evolving, it should do so in a way that includes personal knowledge. Is there really a sense of personal knowledge when shared knowledge is seemingly more justified? We are supposedly dominated by our genes and psychology, thus making it appear that only the physical can truly be considered fully real, thus making scientists and doctors authority figures in the care of our bodies. Can free will exist when the physical aspects of our bodies intrinsically influence our formulation of thoughts/knowledge? Evaluation of Kant's theory and its usefulness in determining whether science can legitimately prevail over Kant's moral theory. Two formulations that can be drawn from his theory of respect for persons will be discussed below. The first is “Always treat people (including yourself) and ends in themselves, never simply as a means to your ends” and the second is “Act only according to that maxim which you can consistently will as a universal law”. In treating people as ends in themselves.