The connection between the shared and personal knowledge of communities within a religion, a science or more broadly a belief system has systematically reigned over all aspects of life. From the tiny decisions of choosing an outfit in the morning to unplugging from a loved one, our decisions are based on the shared or personal knowledge we have accumulated. Belief in itself is defined as often unsupported support for an idea. In this case, the belief used to make decisions about whether shared or personal knowledge can be used to justify one's actions. According to Kant, our decisions are only considered moral when they follow his categorical imperative or his universal law of morality which dictates that our selfish desires are not prioritized. Moving to a discussion of specific shared knowledge, I will address the medical community, which, like other scientific communities, is connected by shared knowledge regarding understanding the human body. Kant's theory of “respect for persons” asserts that we are more than a physical entity, but 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Throughout this article there will be a discussion of whether our belief in shared knowledge and how one's belief that one's shared or personal knowledge trumps that of another due of their authority in certain areas. The position adopted will assert that although shared knowledge is capable of evolving over time and appears to be the most logical, according to Kant as well, the intrinsic value of an individual and its implications cannot in any way be ignored. To begin with, Kant's moral theory serves to defend individual thought against strong belief systems based on history and logic, that is, the scientific community and the religious community. Through their more detailed specifications for each group, they each drew their common knowledge from a set of individuals and justified their actions. Like utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant's moral theory is based on a theory of intrinsic value. But where utilitarians consider happiness, conceived as pleasure and absence of pain, as that which has intrinsic value, Kant considers that the only thing which has moral value in itself is good will. The aforementioned communities fail to recognize happiness as anything other than a chemical reaction or spiritual feeling. They generalized the happiness of the whole group rather than by considering the individual. Within the medical community, there cannot be medicine without the use of bioethics to dictate what actions in the name of science are justified by evidence other than pure empirical evidence. For example, the decision to donate an organ without any complications would seem, to a doctor, a logical thing if the patient is capable of it. However, for the patient, various factors may prevent him from doing this, such as religion, emotions (fear) or personal interest in his own health. This latter reason contradicts the Kantian idea of ​​CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we might have to the contrary. So, here, the possibility of donating an organ is a completely selfless act that would save a life, butChoosing to refrain from doing so simply because you personally know that a family member may have died while donating should have no influence on your decision. Bioethics is evolving to include philosophy in the consideration of the non-physical “self” within the human body. Rather than viewing emotions as a human response, scientists have reduced emotions and mental states to a release of chemicals in the body. Associated bioethics has moved away from a discussion of the conduct of physicians only, but also on the practices themselves which consider the patient inferior in matters concerning their body, which raises questions such as informed consent which will be discussed later. Through the lens of their shared knowledge, the body is viewed 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 plays the dominant role in a seemingly egalitarian partnership/trust between doctor and patient. The root of this shared knowledge comes from the natural sciences in which the happiness of the individual is supplanted by their well-being. This doctor's personal knowledge is overridden by this shared knowledge and this patient's personal knowledge himself is ignored by the seemingly authority figure that is the doctor. Physician or physician to be clarified here does not simply refer to an individual but rather the position that dictates what is correct and incorrect 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 where they base their decisions on seemingly the same shared knowledge that prioritizes physical well-being over happiness, of course in terms of utilitarian happiness . 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, patients. I will then use Kant's "Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)" to explore formulations of Kant's moral theory as a means of justifying the tendency of physicians to prioritize their own shared knowledge over their personal knowledge. Thanks to science, physical symptoms can be alleviated without considering all aspects of happiness. I revisit how happiness can be defined by both utilitarianism and Kantian ethics and conclude that while shared knowledge is capable of evolving, it should do so in a way that includes personal knowledge. Is there really a feeling of personal knowledge when shared knowledge seems more justified? We are supposed to be dominated by our genes and psychology, making it seem like only the physical can truly be considered fully real, thus making scientists and doctors authority figures in the care of our own bodies. Can free will exist when the physical aspects of our bodies inherently bias the formulation of our thoughts/knowledge? Evaluating Kant's theory and its usefulness in determining whether science can rightly override Kant's moral theory. Two formulations that can be drawn from his theory of respect for persons will then be discussed. The first being “Always treat people (including.