Practical Reason: Categorical Imperative, Maxims, Laws
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In W. Dudley & K. Engelhard (eds.), Kant: Key Concepts. Acumen (2010)
This chapter considers the centrality of principles in Kant’s moral philosophy, their distinctively ‘Kantian’ character, why Kant presents a ‘metaphysical’ system of moral principles and how these ‘formal’ principles are to be used in practice. These points are central to how Kant thinks pure reason can be practical. These features have often puzzled Anglophone readers, in part due to focusing on Kant’s Groundwork, to the neglect of his later works in moral philosophy, in which the theoretical preliminaries of that first essay are properly articulated. In part, however, these puzzles stem, directly or indirectly, from Kant’s opposition to moral empiricism, which is bound to puzzle Anglophone readers, whose default orientation is empiricist. Accordingly, particular attention is paid to Kant’s reasons for rejecting moral empiricism and for developing an alternative to it, to Kant’s account of how his universalization tests serve as criteria of morally obligatory, permissible or prohibited actions and to his account of what is morally wrong with actions which violate those criteria. Examining these points provides a compelling synopsis of Kant’s system of moral principles, centring on the key terms ‘practical reason’, ‘law’, ‘maxim’ and ‘Categorical Imperative’.
|Keywords||Tests of the Categorical Imperative Respect for Persons|
|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
Matthew Braham & Martin van Hees (2015). The Formula of Universal Law: A Reconstruction. Erkenntnis 80 (2):243-260.
Similar books and articles
Marcus Arvan (2012). Unifying the Categorical Imperative. Southwest Philosophy Review 28 (1):217-225.
Marcus Willaschek (2009). Right and Coercion: Can Kant's Conception of Right Be Derived From His Moral Theory? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (1):49 – 70.
Oliver Sensen (2011). Kant's Conception of Inner Value. European Journal of Philosophy 19 (2):262-280.
Michael Nance (2012). Kantian Right and the Categorical Imperative: Response to Willaschek. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20 (4):541-556.
James Scott Johnston (2006). The Education of the Categorical Imperative. Studies in Philosophy and Education 25 (5-6):385-402.
Xiaomei Yang (2006). Categorical Imperatives, Moral Requirements, and Moral Motivation. Metaphilosophy 37 (1):112–129.
Stephen Engstrom (1993). Allison on Rational Agency. Inquiry 36 (4):405 – 418.
Klas Roth (2011). Principles of the Unification of Our Agency. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (3):283-297.
Andrews Reath (2010). Contemporary Kantian Ethics. In John Skorupski (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Ethics. Routledge
Joel J. Kupperman (2002). A Messy Derivation of the Categorical Imperative. Philosophy 77 (4):485-502.
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.
Jeremy Schwartz (2010). Do Hypothetical Imperatives Require Categorical Imperatives? European Journal of Philosophy 18 (1):84-107.
Stephen Engstrom (2009). The Form of Practical Knowledge: A Study of the Categorical Imperative. Harvard University Press.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-03-11
Total downloads1 ( #671,676 of 1,777,149 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #289,892 of 1,777,149 )
How can I increase my downloads?