m kind of hard in my view. We are supposed to think to ourselves if our reason for an action could be a universal law, and if not it is not a good maxim. Understanding his idea of instinct controlling our actions, it is still hard to imagine that there is no influence of reason. He says reason is given to us to influence the will and thus could corrupt our maxims for action, making the universal laws into ideals of mankind not of the universe. At any rate it is hard to believe that one should hold their actions up to laws that are non-existent because, as Chuang Tzu states, they are a way of keeping mankind in order. They in fact prohibit the full enlightenment humans can obtain because it is action according to him.Taoists such as Chuang Tzu and Smullyan believe, as mentioned earlier, that the way to happiness is through allowing ones self to not worry about action and instead be nothing at all. They do believe, like Kant, that happiness comes when you do not look for it but unlike him and the Hindu poem we do not have duties and obligations. This is because heaven does nothing and it is this that gives it its’ serenity. Smullyan brings up the problem with their view in the article when the moralist starts to question how he can accept everything that goes on in the world. The Taoist responds by saying that he accepts the world as a whole and not all the individual pieces of it. I think that, although non-action is the key to happiness for them, not helping those in need is rather shameful. Although this does require the existence of duty, which they are against, it is just hard to believe that one could allow human atrocities to take place and not want to help. Of course you would have to be careful that it was not done out of an inclination like Kant says, but if done for true duty it would be a good thing. The Taoists tell you to live within yourself but I do not believe that one can achieve true happiness knowing...
