¶ … Moral Objectivism to Moral Skepticism (a) According to Kant, what is the difference between "a posteriori" knowledge and "a priori" knowledge? What kind of knowledge would the statement "All triangles have three sides" be? What about the statement "The 44th U.S. President is African-American"?

A posteriori knowledge is knowledge 'after the fact' or knowledge based upon experience, versus a priori knowledge, which is knowledge which can be based upon pure, deductive reasoning (Johnson 2014). The idea that all triangles by definition have three sides can be known a priori, based upon mathematical, deductive logic. However, the statement that the 44th U.S. President is an African-American requires experience to understand, given that the president's race (regardless of what that race might be) does not logically flow from the condition of being president.

(b) Upon a Utilitarian account, would the statement "The assassination of MLK was wrong" be an example of a priori knowledge or a posteriori knowledge? Given your response, why couldn't the statement be an example of the other kind of knowledge according to the utilitarian?

Utilitarians are consequentialists and determine the ethics of statements solely by experience. It would be a posteriori knowledge given that all forms of knowledge are a posteriori to utilitarians.

(c) According to Kant, would the statement "The assassination of MLK was wrong" be an example of A priori or A posteriori knowledge? Given your response, why couldn't the statement be an example of the other kind of knowledge for Kant?

For Kant, this moral statement would be a priori, or based upon transcendent moral ideals. Certain...

(a) Why is lying wrong according to Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative (i.e. formula of humanity)? You must state Kant's principle in your response.
The categorical imperative states that an action is moral if it would be good as a universal law of nature and good for all people (including the actor him or herself) and if the action does not treat a person as a means vs. An end (Johnson 2014). Lying is not a good principle as a universal concept and honesty is necessary for moral interactions between all people.

(b) Why is the practice of using employees NOT necessarily a violation of…

Using employees is not necessarily using individuals as a means to an end if they are treated ethically and employees benefit from the arrangement. The workplace must be ethical in a way that the employer would not mind being an employee there him or herself.

(c) Imagine you are living in Nazi Germany: you are hiding Jews in your basement, and a Nazi soldier is at your door. He asks you if you know where any Jews are hiding. Given Kant's definition of a person as a "rational being" -- as well as Ossian's emphasis on being in the "right mind" from our last discussion -- how might one try to argue that a Kantian can consistently claim that it would be morally permissible to tell the Nazi a "lie"?

Lying is acceptable in this instance because it preserves the higher principle of sustaining life, which must be obeyed at all times and the liar would want someone to lie for him or herself in the same instance, if persecuted him or herself. It is also not using another human being as a…