Online research in philosophy

Christine Korsgaard has become one of the leading interpreters of Kant's moral philosophy. She is identified with a small group of philosophers who are intent on producing a version of Kant's moral philosophy that is at once sensitive to its historical roots while revealing its particular relevance to contemporary problems. She rejects the traditional picture of Kant's ethics as a cold vision of the moral life which emphasises duty at the expense of love and value. Rather, Kant's work is seen as providing a resource for addressing not only the metaphysics of morals, but also for tackling practical questions about personal relations, politics, and everyday human interaction. This collection contains some of the finest current work on Kant's ethics and will command the attention of all those involved in teaching and studying moral theory.

The Sources of Normativity is an ambitious and demanding book. It is impossible to do full justice to The Sources of Normativity in a review essay such as this. I shall therefore concentrate on Korsgaard’s partisan goal: her defence of a Kantian view about the sources of normativity. It was evidently this part that most excited the commentators when they first heard Korsgaard deliver her Tanner Lectures. I suspect it is the part of the book that will most excite the general reader as well. Certainly it was the part that most intrigued me.

Let T be a complete first-order theory over a finite relational language which is axiomatized by universal and existential sentences. It is shown that T is almost trivial in the sense that the universe of any model of T can be written $F \overset{\cdot}{\cup} I_1 \overset{\cdot}{\cup} I_2 \overset{\cdot}{\cup} \cdots \overset{\cdot}{\cup} I_n$ , where F is finite and I 1 , I 2 ,...,I n are mutually indiscernible over F. Some results about complete theories with ∃∀-axioms over a finite relational language are also mentioned.

When I take a sip from the coffee in my cup, I can taste that it is sweet. When I hold the cup with my hands, I can feel that it is hot. Why does the experience of feeling that the cup is hot give me justification for believing that the cup is hot?And why does the experience of tasting that the coffee is sweet give me justification for believing that the coffee is sweet?In general terms: Why is it that a sense experience that P is a source of justification—a reason—for believing that P? Call this the Question. I will discuss various answers to the Question, and defend the one I myself favor.

The author, starting from what is currently known about cup-marks and their distribution in the north-western Italian alpine area, formulated a hypothesis on their material and ritual functions in the Neolithic period. It is conceivable that cup-marks were originally carved in connection with the ritual use of Amanita muscaria, and that they may later have assumed other functions as well.

Reasons and values Christine Korsgaard's Creating The Kingdom of Ends and The Sources of Normativity , Cambridge University Press, 1996. Pp 442. ISBN 0-521-49644-6. Price 40.