Abstract

Konrad Cramer, in “ Reflections on the Logical Structure of a Kantian Moral Argument ”, argues that the Universal Law Formulation of the Categorical Imperative is best understood as providing us with an indirect method for determining the moral permissibility of acting on our maxims. He then goes on argue, however, that no interpretation of UL is consistent with Kant’s epistemic claim that we can easily discover what morality demands of us. In response I argue that Cramer relies on an excessively demanding interpretation of Kant’s epistemic claim and that his indirect interpretation of UL rests on a problematic account how our maxims relate to the actions that we perform on their basis. I then turn to the question of the overall plausibility of UL, and stress the need to interpret it within the context of Kant’s overall moral system.