David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 36 (4):405 – 418 (1993)
In his very rich and insightful book, Kant's Theory of Freedom, Henry Allison argues that in the first Critique Kant's reason for rejecting Humean compatibilism in favor of an incompatibilist conception of practical freedom stems, not from a specific concern to ground morality, as many have supposed, but from his general conception of rational agency, which Allison explicates in terms of the idea of practical spontaneity. Practically spontaneous rational agency is subject to imperatives and therefore distinct from Humean agency. But it is not necessarily subject to the categorical imperative and hence is distinct from fully spontaneous (transcendentally free) moral agency. A conception thus emerges of an agent with limited spontaneity, subject to hypothetical but not categorical imperatives. A doubt may be raised, however, as to whether Kant's view can accommodate this conception of limited practical spontaneity. Reflection on Kant's notion of a hypothetical imperative suggests that the idea of limited spontaneity is in danger of either collapsing into the Humean picture or else turning out to be equivalent to the conception of full spontaneity appropriate to moral agency. There is thus reason to suppose that, for Kant, we would not be bound by imperatives at all if we were not bound by the categorical imperative.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Immanuel Kant (2007). Critique of Pure Reason. In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Blackwell Pub. Ltd. 449-451.
Citations of this work BETA
Mark Schroeder (2005). The Hypothetical Imperative? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (3):357 – 372.
Jamsheed Siyar (2013). The Conditionality of Hypothetical Imperatives. Kantian Review 18 (3):439-460.
Similar books and articles
Mark Thomas Walker (2012). Kant, Schopenhauer and Morality: Recovering the Categorical Imperative. Palgrave Macmillan.
Iuliana Corina Vaida (2014). The Problem of Agency and the Problem of Accountability in Kant's Moral Philosophy. European Journal of Philosophy 22 (1):110-137.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2001). Freedom and the Distinction Between Phenomena and Noumena: Is Allison's View Methodological, Metaphysical, or Equivocal? Journal of Philosophical Research 26:593-622.
Jeremy Schwartz (2010). Do Hypothetical Imperatives Require Categorical Imperatives? European Journal of Philosophy 18 (1):84-107.
Robert N. Johnson (2009). The Moral Law as Causal Law. In Jens Timmermann (ed.), Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press
Klas Roth (2011). Principles of the Unification of Our Agency. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (3):283-297.
Andrews Reath (2010). Contemporary Kantian Ethics. In John Skorupski (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Ethics. Routledge
Andrews Reath (1993). Intelligible Character and the Reciprocity Thesis. Inquiry 36 (4):419 – 430.
Robert N. Johnson, Kant's Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Henry E. Allison (1990). Kant's Theory of Freedom. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-02-04
Total downloads54 ( #82,895 of 1,934,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,687 of 1,934,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?