DOCSLIB.ORG

Australasian Journal of Philosophy the Hypothetical Imperative?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Australasian Journal of Philosophy the Hypothetical Imperative? This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] On: 3 January 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 782980718] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Australasian Journal of Philosophy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713659165 The hypothetical imperative? Mark Schroedera a University of Maryland, To cite this Article Schroeder, Mark(2005) 'The hypothetical imperative?', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83: 3, 357 — 372 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00048400500191958 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048400500191958 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 357 – 372; September 2005 THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE? Mark Schroeder According to the standard view, Kant held that hypothetical imperatives are universally binding edicts with disjunctive objects: take-the-means-or-don’t- have-the-end. But Kant thought otherwise. He held that they are edicts binding only on some—those who have an end. On the other hand, the question as to how the imperative of morality is possible is undoubtedly the only one requiring a solution. For it is not at all hypothetical; and hence the objective necessity which it presents cannot be based on any presupposition, as was the case with the hypothetical imperatives. Kant, Groundwork [4:419]1 I A. Introduction The contrast between hypothetical and categorical imperatives is central to Kant’s ethical theory. According to Kant, all imperatives present a practical kind of objective necessity, but with hypothetical imperatives that necessity is based on a presupposition, while with categorical imperatives it is not. Hypothetical imperatives commend taking the necessary means to a certain class of agents—those who have the end. If you have the end, then you ought to take the necessary means. But many contemporary commentators on Kant disagree. According to them, Kant believes in a Hypothetical Imperative that is not based on any presupposition; instead, it has a disjunctive object. It tells everyone to ‘[t]ake the necessary means or else give up the end’ [Hill 1973: 436]. They say that, ‘[t]aken strictly, it [the hypothetical imperative] counsels us Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 19:00 3 January 2011 either to take the means or to give up the end’ [Darwall 1983: 16]. One of the ways in which the problem can be seen to arise2 is to follow deontic logicians in interpreting ‘ought’ as a sentential operator, on the 1Page references in the text are to the Prussian Academy edition of Kant’s works [Kant 1902/10ff.], by volume and page number, except where indicated otherwise. 2‘Ought’ is probably not a sentential operator [Schroeder 2004], and Kant certainly didn’t think that it was. Kant held that ‘ought’ expresses a relation between someone who ought to do something, and an action—not a proposition—which she ought to do. Imperatives, that is, ‘say that something would be good to do or to refrain from doing, but they say it to a will that does not always’ do it [4:413, my italics]. Fortunately, however, we don’t need this assumption in order to get this dispute going. Kant never actually says, ‘if you will the end, then you ought to will the necessary means’. He only says things like, ‘[a] hypothetical imperative thus says that an action is good for some purpose, either possible or actual’ [4:414 – 5]. So we Australasian Journal of Philosophy ISSN 0004-8402 print/ISSN 1470-6828 online ª 2005 Australasian Association of Philosophy http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/00048400500191958 358 Mark Schroeder model of ‘necessarily’ and ‘possibly’. In deontic logic, ‘ought’ assigns practical, as opposed to alethic or metaphysical necessity to propositions. So, in the generic statement of hypothetical imperatives—‘if you will the end, then you ought to take the necessary means’—there are two salient choices for how to interpret the scope of the ‘ought’, since there are two salient sentential clauses in which it figures. One choice is to give it scope merely over the consequent of the conditional. Let us call this the Consequent Scope reading of the conditional. The other choice is to give it scope over the entire conditional. Let us call this the Wide Scope reading.3 Consequent Scope: VxVe (if x wills end e, then x ought (x takes the means to e)) Wide Scope: VxVe (x ought (if x wills end e, then x takes the means to e) It is important to notice two obvious differences between Consequent Scope and Wide Scope. Because the difference between them derives from whether ‘if x wills end e’ qualifies which x ought to do something, or whether it qualifies what the x ought to do, Wide and Consequent Scope disagree not merely about what kind of thing hypothetical imperatives enjoin us to do. They also differ with respect to who they enjoin to do it. According to Consequent Scope, hypothetical imperatives enjoin those with the end to take the necessary means. Their mandate is, as Kant puts it, ‘based on a presupposition’, and they don’t mandate it to those who don’t satisfy the presupposition. But according to Wide Scope, the Hypothetical Imperative is not based on any presupposition. It applies to everyone unconditionally, no matter what they are like. It sounds, in short, very much like a special kind of categorical imperative. The dominant view of Kant on hypothetical imperatives is that Kant accepts hypothetical imperatives only with a Wide Scope reading.4 But in this paper I’ll explain why this is a clear mistake, at least with respect to the Kant of the Groundwork and the second Critique. I’ll point out, in fact, that don’t need the thesis that the sentence is actually ambiguous—we only need ideas like those of Hill and Darwall for what hypothetical imperatives might require. 3Stephen Engstrom [1993: 408] classifies the central options slightly differently. He seems to think that there is Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 19:00 3 January 2011 only one possible version of the Consequent Scope view, and it is that it is to be restricted to ends that are ‘set by reason’ [408], and hence obligatory. He calls this view the ‘material’ reading of hypothetical imperatives, and contrasts it with the ‘formal’ reading, which is essentially Wide Scope. His ‘material’ reading of hypothetical imperatives, however, is itself merely a special case of the consequent scope reading—it is possible to hold a Consequent Scope view which applies even to ends that are not ‘set by reason’. This non- exhaustive classification of views might appear to be a slight problem for Engstrom, since his argument in that paper is supposed to pose a dilemma for one of Allison’s views. But as we’ll see in Section III.B I do hold that a version of the ‘set by reason’ view is in fact that way that Kant’s Consequent Scope view works. 4[Hill 1973] is the classic and one of the clearest statements of this interpretation and its motivation. Hill also later reiterates his position [Hill 1989: 365]. I take it that Rawls would agree, since Hill cites his lectures as inspiration [Hill 1973: 429]. Korsgaard endorses Hill’s reading [Korsgaard 1997b: 234n] and offers two detailed accounts of what Kant’s arguments were for this view at different points in his career, which I’ll consider in Section II [Korsgaard 1997b: 238 – 40, 245 – 7]. Barbara Herman follows Hill at least as far as talking about ‘the Hypothetical Imperative’ in the singular [Herman 1993: 144, 214 – 5]. Stephen Darwall [Darwall 1983: 16, 47] and Jean Hampton [Hampton 1998: 144, 165] certainly commit to the view, and I suspect that many if not most contemporary Kantian thinkers in ethics are guilty of making the same mistake. H. J. Paton is extremely unclear about how he uses the word ‘conditioned’ in his The Categorical Imperative [Paton 1947], but he clearly thinks, like Hill, that individual hypothetical imperatives are ‘conditioned’ on the Hypothetical Imperative, which is in turn not ‘conditioned’ on ends at all, but only on the moral imperative. See Section III.C. The Hypothetical Imperative? 359 the only serious motivation for this interpretation of Kant stems from considerations which are entirely extra-textual [Greenspan 1975; Gensler 1985; Hampton 1998; Broome 1999; Schroeder 2004],5 and I’ll argue that Kant’s view plausibly possesses other resources to deal with these considerations. It will be a consequence of my interpretation that, contra interpreters like Korsgaard and Hill, Kant never seriously took there to be a Hypothetical Imperative, capital-H, capital-I, an independent and funda- mental objective principle of practical reason of which hypothetical imperatives are the expression, in the way that categorical imperatives are expressions of the Categorical Imperative.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Qualitative Freedom
    Claus Dierksmeier Qualitative Freedom - Autonomy in Cosmopolitan Responsibility Translated by Richard Fincham Qualitative Freedom - Autonomy in Cosmopolitan Responsibility Claus Dierksmeier Qualitative Freedom - Autonomy in Cosmopolitan Responsibility Claus Dierksmeier Institute of Political Science University of Tübingen Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany Translated by Richard Fincham American University in Cairo New Cairo, Egypt Published in German by Published by Transcript Qualitative Freiheit – Selbstbestimmung in weltbürgerlicher Verantwortung, 2016. ISBN 978-3-030-04722-1 ISBN 978-3-030-04723-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04723-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018964905 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
    [Show full text]
  • Individuality and Rights in Fichte's Ethics
    Philosophers’ volume 17, no. 12 Despite sustained and sophisticated philosophical attention in recent Imprint june 2017 years, J.G. Fichte’s 1796–97 Foundations of Natural Right continues to present some of the same interpretive puzzles that it presented to its first readers. Here I propose solutions to two of those puzzles, which concern the nature of political obligation and its relation to moral obli- gation. Both solutions are motivated by a novel approach to the text, which looks at it through the lens of Fichte’s moral philosophy (as pre- sented in the 1798 System of Ethics), into which its results must fit if, as INDIVIDUALITY Fichte believes, the possibility of morally sanctioned interactions with others requires standing in some law-governed political relationship with them. AND RIGHTS IN It is not unusual for interpretive problems that arise when a text is approached in isolation to become soluble when the text is placed against a broader systematic or historical background; and that is the FICHTE'S ETHICS general sort of project I undertake here. The reason this particular ap- proach has not yet been taken with the Foundations has been that no work on Fichte’s ethical theory has, until recently, provided a fruitful point of entry. The interpretation I have defended in work of the past few years,1 on which Fichte’s normative theory is a form of capabilities- maximizing consequentialism, changes the picture, inviting compari- son of Fichte’s treatment of political duties with those of other conse- Michelle Kosch quentialists, and consideration of the role of coordination and agree- ments in consequentialist ethical theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant's Ethics
    Kant's ethics Quick reminder About Kant Goods Kant's ethics Hypothetical and categorical imperatives Using the CI Objections Thursday, April 23, 2009 Quick reminder Kant's ethics Quick reminder About Kant Goods Hypothetical and Papers are due tomorrow! categorical imperatives Using the CI Objections Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Kant's ethics Quick reminder About Kant K¨onigsburg,Prussia Goods Hypothetical (now Kaliningrad, Russia) and categorical Enlightenment philosophy imperatives Using the CI Grundlagen der Objections Metaphysik der Sitten Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals Talents and temperament Ex: Intelligence, courage Subjective states and feelings Ex: Happiness, pleasure Choice and reasons for action Ex: hPay your taxes before they're due to avoid going to jail.i Also called rules, principles, intentions, maxims, and imperatives Three kinds of goods Kant's ethics Goods Quick reminder Things with at least some (positive) moral significance or value About Kant Goods Analysis of goods Anti- consequentialism Hypothetical and categorical imperatives Using the CI Objections Subjective states and feelings Ex: Happiness, pleasure Choice and reasons for action Ex: hPay your taxes before they're due to avoid going to jail.i Also called rules, principles, intentions, maxims, and imperatives Three kinds of goods Kant's ethics Goods Quick reminder Things with at least some (positive) moral significance or value About Kant Goods Analysis of goods Anti- Talents and temperament Ex: Intelligence, courage consequentialism Hypothetical and categorical
    [Show full text]
  • Title Response to 'Kant's Concept of Happiness' by Yuzo Hirose Author
    Title Response to 'Kant's Concept of Happiness' by Yuzo Hirose Author(s) Michael Marshall Happiness and Personal Growth: Dialogue between Citation Philosophy, Psychology, and Comparative Education (2010): 51-56 Issue Date 2010-03-31 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/143023 The copyright of papers included in this paper belongs to each Right author. Type Article Textversion publisher Kyoto University 51 Response to 'Kant's Concept of Happiness' by Yuzo Hirose MICHAEL MARSHALL Faculty of the Arts Thames Valley University The generalised conclusion is that therefore the parts of experience hold together from next to next by relations that are themselves parts of experience (James, 1967, p. 136). Kant's mature philosophy is dependent on a synthetic schema or operation of 'faculties' of the human agent as individuated actor. His Second Critique, on Practical Reason, was anticipated with impatience by his contemporaries, who were also increasingly intolerant of the categorial subtleties of these synthetic operations, which seemed to privilege abstraction over political action and radicality. One of these contemporaries was Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who in Kant's native city of Konigsberg published in 1792 an 'Attempt at a Critique of all Revelation', which was taken for a long-anticipated work on religion by Kant (La Vopa, 2001, p. 82). It is perhaps useful, in this context, to point out an interesting inflection and dialectical gesture. Yuzo Hirose bases his account on the canonical 'ought' of the categorical imperative. He seeks to restore his
    [Show full text]
  • Willing the End Means Willing the Means: an Overlooked Reading of Kant
    AN OPEN ACCESS Ergo JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Willing the End Means Willing the Means: An Overlooked Reading of Kant WOORAM LEE (University of Southern California) In his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant famously claims that it is ana- lytic that whoever wills the end also wills the indispensably necessary means to it that is within his control. The orthodox consensus has it that the analytic proposition expresses a normative principle of practical reason. In this paper, I argue that this consensus is mistaken. On my resolute reading of Kant, he is making a descriptive point about what it is to will an end, and not making a normative claim of any sort. Kant’s argument is that when you know that some object is a necessary means to an end, you do not count as willing the end unless you also will the means, because of the distinctive content of willing: when you will an end, what you will is that you do whatever is necessary to bring about the end. I show how the resolute reading of Kant’s analytic proposition explains the possibility of hypothetical imperatives and defend the resolute reading from the charge that it makes instrumental irrationality impossible. n his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant famously calls the follow- Iing proposition “analytic”: “whoever wills the end also wills (in so far as rea- son has decisive influence on his actions) the indispensably necessary means to it that is in his control” (4:417).1 Read naïvely, with little attention to the ca- veat in the parenthesis, this proposition is most straightforwardly interpreted as specifying a descriptive relation between willing an end and willing the necessary means to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant on "Why Must I Keep My Promise?"
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 81 Issue 1 Symposium: Promises, Commitments, Article 5 and the Foundations of Contract Law December 2005 Kant on "Why Must I Keep My Promise?" B. Sharon Byrd Joanchim Hruschka Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation B. S. Byrd & Joanchim Hruschka, Kant on "Why Must I Keep My Promise?", 81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 47 (2006). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol81/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. KANT ON "WHY MUST I KEEP MY PROMISE?" B. SHARON BYRD AND JOACHIM HRUSCHKA* INTRODUCTION Why is it that I must keep my promise? Immanuel Kant,1 in his "Doc- trine of Right,"'2 tells us that everyone easily understands "I must." The duty to keep promises is a categorical imperative. 3 Kant says that any fur- * B. Sharon Byrd is a Professor of U.S. Law at the School of Law, Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, Germany and Joachim Hruschka is a Professor of Law at Friedrich-Alexander University in Erlangen, Germany. The authors would like to thank the members of the workshop "Economics, Ethics and Law (Contractualism and the Ethics of Contracts)" at the IVR World Congress, May 24-29, 2005, in Granada, Spain, for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article, and particularly Hora- cio Spector, who also organized the event.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of the Hypothetical Imperative Philippa Foot Oxford University
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The College at Brockport, State University of New York: Digital Commons @Brockport Philosophic Exchange Volume 2 Article 16 Number 1 Volume 1, Number 2, Summer 1971 1971 In Defense of the Hypothetical Imperative Philippa Foot Oxford University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Repository Citation Foot, Philippa (1971) "In Defense of the Hypothetical Imperative," Philosophic Exchange: Vol. 2 : No. 1 , Article 16. Available at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol2/iss1/16 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @Brockport. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophic Exchange by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @Brockport. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Foot: In Defense of the Hypothetical Imperative PH ILIPPA FOOT Professor of Ph iZosophy Oxford University 136 Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1971 1 Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 2 [1971], No. 1, Art. 16 IN DEFENCE OF THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE * by PHILIPPA FOOT A Consideration of Kant's arguments against the hypothetical imperative in morality. In this paper I want to consider Kant's reasons for rejecting the hypothetical imperative as a form of moral judgement. As everyone knows, Kant insisted that moral precepts must be 'categorical imperatives' telling the agent what he should do whatever his desires or interests. These categorical imperatives Kant contrasted with rules or skill on the one hand and rules of prudence on the other, calling both hypothetical imperatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Analytic Kantianism
    Philosophical Topics VOLUME 34, NUMBERS 1 & 2 SPRING AND FALL 2006 ANALYTIC KANTIANISM Contents Kantian Lessons about Mind, Meaning, and Rationality 1 Robert Brandom Meaning and Aesthetic Judgment in Kant 21 Eli Friedlander Carnap and Quine: Twentieth-Century Echoes of Kant and Hume 35 Michael Friedman Kant and the Problem of Experience 59 Hannah Ginsborg Kant on Beauty and the Normative Force of Feeling 107 Arata Hamawaki Spontaneity and Receptivity in Kant’s Theory of Knowledge 145 Andrea Kern Logicist Responses to Kant: (Early) Frege and (Early) Russell 163 Michael Kremer Kant’s Spontaneity Thesis 189 Thomas Land Prolegomena to a Proper Treatment of Mathematics in the Critique of Pure Reason 221 Thomas Lockhart Self-Consciousness and Consciousness of One’s Own Body: Variations on a Kantian Theme 283 Béatrice Longuenesse Sensory Consciousness in Kant and Sellars 311 John McDowell The Bounds of Sense 327 A. W. Moore Logical Form as a Relation to the Object 345 Sebastian Rödl Kant on the Nature of Logical Laws 371 Clinton Tolley PHILOSOPHICAL TOPICS VOL. 34, NOS. 1 & 2, SPRING AND FALL 2006 Kantian Lessons about Mind, Meaning, and Rationality Robert Brandom University of Pittsburgh Kant revolutionized our thinking about what it is to have a mind. Some of what seem to me to be among the most important lessons he taught us are often not yet sufficiently appreciated, however. I think this is partly because they are often not themes that Kant himself explicitly emphasized. To appreciate these ideas, one must look primarily at what he does, rather than at what he says about what he is doing.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant's Categorical Imperative And
    Technology and Investment, 2015, 6, 1-11 Published Online February 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ti http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ti.2015.61001 Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the “Business” of Profit Maximization: The Quest for Service Paradigm Godwyns Ade Agbude1, Joseph Kayode Ogunwede2, Joy Godwyns-Agbude3, Ikedinachi Power Ayodele Wogu1, Excellence-Oluye Nchekwube1 1Department of Political Science and International Relations, School of Human Resource Development, College of Leadership Development Studies, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria 2Department of Accountancy, Moshood Abiola Polytechnic, Abeokuta, Nigeria 3Charis Center of Leadership Development, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Received 11 August 2014; revised 8 September 2014; accepted 10 October 2014 Copyright © 2015 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract The discourse in the business world has gone beyond the primary purpose of business. While some scholars would argue that the primary purpose of business is profit maximization, others are of the opinion that business, beyond maximizing profit, exists to promote and enhance the well-being of humanity. Between these two divides, this paper attempts to contribute robustly to this perennial dialogue
    [Show full text]
  • Kant's Absolute Good Will and Its Implications for Some Current
    Quest Journals Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science Volume 7 ~ Issue 8 (2019)pp.:03-14 ISSN(Online):2321-9467 www.questjournals.org Research Paper Kant’s Absolute Good Will And Its Implications For Some Current Ethical Issues Like Suicide, War And Abortion Emmanuel KelechiIwuagwuPh.D Department of Philosophy, University of Calabar – Nigeria ABSTRACT: This work titled: “Kant’s Absolute Good Will and its Implications for some current Ethical Issues like Suicide, War and Abortion” presents a critical consideration and application of Kant’s deontological ethical theory succinctly formulated in his categorical imperative. Kant provided this imperative as a moral standard of determining the morality of an action and the moral worthiness of an agent. This work employing the analytic and critical methods exposed the contents of Kant’s moral theory and tested its viability as a moral standard by applying it to three current ethical issues of suicide, war and abortion. The work gave a critical exposition of the concepts of good will, duty and the categorical imperative. It further presented exhaustive arguments for and against the ethical issues of suicide, war and abortion before applying Kant’s absolute good will as a standard for their justification or condemnation. In the end the work frowned at the rigidity of Kant’s standard for moral judgment which neither made rooms for exceptions nor considered the subjective dimension of every human act. For overlooking the consequences or outcome of one’s action as well as their personal interests, feelings and tendencies, the work considers Kant’s ethical theory as inadequate and recommends that it be combined with other moral standards so as to have a balanced and complete standard of moral judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 23 Immanuel Kant's Ethical Theory
    Aspects of Western Philosophy: Dr. Sreekumar Nellickappilly, IIT Madras Chapter 23 Immanuel Kant’s Ethical Theory Key Words: Deontological, hypothetical imperative, categorical imperative, moral law, postulates of morality, universalizability, kingdom of ends, virtue, duty, good will, assertorial, practical reason. This chapter introduces Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory, which adopts a deontological approach. It starts with an examination of the possibility of moral philosophy in the Kantian framework. Two very important concepts in this context are the notion of categorical imperative and the idea of good will. After writing his first Critique, which deals with pure reason, Kant addresses the problem of morality, which the latter could not account for. Here instead of pure reason, it is practical reason that becomes relevant. As mentioned above, Kant’s ethical theory adopts a deontological approach which highlights the concept of duty and the idea of universal moral law. This ethical theory has at its centre the idea of categorical imperative, as the ethical command is not hypothetical or conditional, but categorical. Kant discusses various formulations of the categorical imperative. Many concepts like the cosmos, self and God, which pure reason found unable to prove, appear as essential regulative principles and postulates of morality in the context of practical reason. With all these concepts, Kant initiates an ethical theory, which he thought would rationally justify a morality based on duties. The Ideas of Reason and Ethics The three “ideas of reason,” self, world and God play a vital role in the ethical theory developed by Kant. In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant had shown that theoretical reason itself cannot prove their reality.
    [Show full text]
  • Treating Others Merely As Means
    Treating Others Merely as Means SAMUEL KERSTEIN University of Maryland, College Park In the Formula of Humanity, Kant embraces the principle that it is wrong for us to treat others merely as means. For contemporary Kantian ethicists, this Mere Means Principle plays the role of a moral constraint: it limits what we may do, even in the service of promoting the overall good. But substantive interpretations of the principle generate implausible results in relatively ordinary cases. On one interpretation, for example, you treat your opponent in a tennis tournament merely as a means and thus wrongly when you try, through defeating him, to win first place. The article aims to develop a reconstruction of the Mere Means Principle that has more plausible implications than do rival reconstructions. It sets out a sufficient condition for an agent’s treating another merely as a means. This condition is intended to be Kantian, but not necessarily one that Kant endorses. Kant embraces the principle that it is wrong for us to treat others merely as means. This ‘Mere Means Principle’, as I refer to it, stems from one formulation of the categorical imperative, namely the Formula of Humanity: ‘So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.’1 If an agent treats another merely as a means, claims Kant, then his action is morally impermissible. In contemporary Kantian ethics, the Mere Means Principle plays the role of a moral constraint: it limits what we may do, even in the service of promoting the overall good.
    [Show full text]