David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio 12 (4):320–353 (1999)
Our notion of normativity appears to combine, in a way difficult to understand but seemingly familiar from experience, elements of force and freedom. On the one hand, a normative claim is thought to have a kind of compelling authority; on the other hand, if our respecting it is to be an appropriate species of respect, it must not be coerced, automatic, or trivially guaranteed by definition. Both Hume and Kant, I argue, looked to aesthetic experience as a convincing example exhibiting this marriage of force and freedom, as well as showing how our judgment can come to be properly attuned to the features that constitute value. This image of attunement carries over into their respective accounts of moral judgment. The seemingly radical difference between their moral theories may be traceable not to a different conception of normativity, but to a difference in their empirical psychological theories – a difference we can readily spot in their accounts of aesthetics
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Adrian Haddock (2004). Rethinking the “Strong Programme” in the Sociology of Knowledge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 35 (1):19-40.
Maksymilian Del Mar (2010). Normativism, Anti-Normativism and Humanist Pragmatism. Human Studies 33 (2):305-323.
Nihan Demirkasimoğlu, İnayet Aydın, Çetin Erdoğan & Uğur Akın (2012). Organisational Rules in Schools: Teachers' Opinions About Functions of Rules, Rule-Following and Breaking Behaviours in Relation to Their Locus of Control. Educational Studies 38 (2):235-247.
Similar books and articles
Jeanna Moyer (2001). Why Kant and Ecofeminism Don't Mix. Hypatia 16 (3):79-97.
Steven M. Bayne (2000). Kant's Answer to Hume: How Kant Should Have Tried to Stand Hume's Copy Thesis on its Head. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 8 (2):207 – 224.
David Wiggins (1995). Categorical Requirements: Kant and Hume on the Idea of Duty. In Rosalind Hursthouse, Gavin Lawrence & Warren Quinn (eds.), The Monist. Clarendon Press 297-330.
Gregg Osborne (2007). Does Kant Refute Hume's Derivation of the Concept of Cause? Journal of Philosophical Research 32:293-318.
Holly L. Wilson (1997). Rethinking Kant From the Perspective of Ecofeminism. In Robin May Schott (ed.), Feminist Interpretations of Kant.
Thomas Sturm (2011). Freedom and the Human Sciences: Hume’s Science of Man Versus Kant’s Pragmatic Anthropology. Kant Yearbook 3 (1):23-42.
Eric Watkins (2004). Kant's Model of Causality: Causal Powers, Laws, and Kant's Reply to Hume. Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (4):449-488.
Thomas Sturm (2004). Manfred Kuehn: Kant - A Biography. [REVIEW] Philosophical Quarterly 54:476-479.
John H. Zammito (2008). Kant and Naturalism Reconsidered. Inquiry 51 (5):532 – 558.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads151 ( #26,000 of 1,934,535 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #76,845 of 1,934,535 )
How can I increase my downloads?