Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (3):357 – 372 (2005)
|Abstract||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.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
R. S. Downie (1984). The Hypothetical Imperative. Mind 93 (372):481-490.
David B. Resnik (1992). Are Methodological Rules Hypothetical Imperatives? Philosophy of Science 59 (3):498-507.
Susanne Bobzien (1997). The Stoics on Hypotheses and Hypothetical Arguments. Phronesis 42 (3):299-312.
Douglas Lind (1994). Kant on Criminal Punishment. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:61-74.
Stephen Engstrom (1993). Allison on Rational Agency. Inquiry 36 (4):405 – 418.
Randolph C. Wheeler (2008). Kantian Imperatives and Phenomenology's Original Forces: Kant's Imperatives and the Directives of Contemporary Phenomenology. Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Robert Shaver (2006). Korsgaard on Hypothetical Imperatives. Philosophical Studies 129 (2):335 - 347.
Jeremy Schwartz (2010). Do Hypothetical Imperatives Require Categorical Imperatives? European Journal of Philosophy 18 (1):84-107.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads135 ( #3,245 of 549,122 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #7,802 of 549,122 )
How can I increase my downloads?