David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 158 (1):83-107 (2012)
In this article, I derive a weak version of Kant's categorical imperative within an informal game-theoretic framework. More specifically, I argue that Hobbesian agents would choose what I call the weak principle of universalization, if they had to decide on a rule of conflict resolution in an idealized but empirically defensible hypothetical decision situation. The discussion clarifies (i) the rationality requirements imposed on agents, (ii) the empirical conditions assumed to warrant the conclusion, and (iii) the political institutions that are necessary to implement the derived principle. The analysis demonstrates the moral significance of the weak principle of universalization and its epistemic advantage over the categorical imperative.
|Keywords||Hobbes and Kant Homo prudens Veil of uncertainty Weak principle of universalization|
|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
David P. Gauthier (1986). Morals by Agreement. Oxford University Press.
John Rawls (2009/2005). A Theory of Justice. In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Philosophy and Rhetoric. Oxford University Press 133-135.
David Hume (1739/2000). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press.
Brian Skyrms (2006). The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Moehler (2014). The Scope of Instrumental Morality. Philosophical Studies 167 (2):431-451.
Michael Moehler (2015). Rational Cooperation and the Nash Bargaining Solution. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3):577-594.
Similar books and articles
Scott Forschler (2007). How to Make Ethical Universalization Tests Work. Journal of Value Inquiry 41 (1):31-43.
William Rehg (1991). Discourse and the Moral Point of View: Deriving a Dialogical Principle of Universalization. Inquiry 34 (1):27 – 48.
Samuel J. Kerstein (2002). Kant's Search for the Supreme Principle of Morality. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Nance (2012). Kantian Right and the Categorical Imperative: Response to Willaschek. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20 (4):541-556.
Joshua M. Glasgow (2003). Expanding the Limits of Universalization: Kant's Duties and Kantian Moral Deliberation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 33 (1):23 - 47.
Douglas Lind (1994). Kant on Criminal Punishment. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:61-74.
Godwin Azenabor (2008). The Golden Rule Principle in African Ethics and Kant's Categorical Imperative. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 10:17-23.
Scott Forschler (2010). Willing Universal Law Vs. Universally Lawful Willing. Southwest Philosophy Review 26 (1):141-152.
Pablo Gilabert (2005). Should Discourse Ethics Do Without a Principle of Universalization? Philosophical Forum 36 (2):183–191.
Scott Forschler (2012). From Supervenience to “Universal Law”: How Kantian Ethics Become Heteronomous. In Dietmar Heidemann (ed.), Kant and Contemporary Moral Philosophy. De Gruyter
Kenneth R. Westphal (1995). How "Full" is Kant's Categorical Imperative? Jahrbuch für Recht Und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 3:465-509.
Arash Abizadeh (2005). In Defence of the Universalization Principle in Discourse Ethics. Philosophical Forum 36 (2):193–211.
Peter Schroeder-Heister (2007). Generalized Definitional Reflection and the Inversion Principle. Logica Universalis 1 (2):355-376.
Philip J. Kain (1988). Marx and Ethics. Oxford University Press.
J. David Velleman (1999). The Voice of Conscience. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99 (1):57–76.
Added to index2010-11-03
Total downloads55 ( #60,672 of 1,725,168 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #210,933 of 1,725,168 )
How can I increase my downloads?