Abstract

Alan gewirth has argued that the fanatical defender of discriminatory moral principles can be convicted of inconsistency by appeal to the principle of categorial consistency (pcc). The pcc requires that equal weight be given to everyone's possession of the categorial features of action, I.E., The capacity to act voluntarily and the capacity to act purposively. In reply, I argue that, Contrary to gewirth, It has not been shown either that the fanatic is committed to the pcc or that the pcc is a presupposition of rational moral evaluation