Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-28T05:47:34.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant's Account of Motivation: A Sartrean Response to Some Hegelian Objections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

Sorin Baiasu
Sorin Baiasu*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Keele, s.baiasu@phil.keele.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Ethical motivation represents an important aspect of Kant's practical philosophy, one without which much of Kant's distinctive position would be lost. Not surprisingly, it is also one of those aspects of Kantianism to which Hegelian criticism directs its focus with predilection. Central to Kant's account of moral motivation is the distinction between acting merely in accordance with duty and acting from duty. When he introduces this distinction, in the Groundwork, Kant also points to the epistemic difficulties of properly drawing the distinction. A key concept here is, without any doubt, that of duty, and Kant begins with a preliminary definition: the notion of duty is a notion ‘which contains that of a good will though under certain subjective limitations and hindrances’ (G: 4: 397).

What this definition tells us is that, although beings which are only governed by practical reason without any admixture of inclinations and sensuous drives, that is, purely rational beings, will also have a good will, such beings do not have duties precisely because they lack the ‘subjective limitations and hindrances’ of sensuous motivating forces, such as desires, passions, habitual responses. If a person spontaneously and necessarily acts as duty requires, then it does not make sense to talk about an obligation for this person to act as duty requires. Such a person must be a purely rational person, since only she can always and necessarily act as (practical) reason requires. By contrast, beings with limitations and hindrances, like us, act spontaneously and necessarily as natural laws require and, hence, it does not make sense to talk about our obligation or duty to observe the laws of nature.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , Spring/Summer 2010 , pp. 86 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, H. (1990), Kant's Theory of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baiasu, S. (2010, forthcoming), Kant and Sartre: Rediscovering Critical Ethics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Deligiorgi, K. (2010), ‘Review of Ido Geiger's The Founding Act of Modern Ethical Life ’ in Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 61.Google Scholar
Deligiorgi, K. (2010, forthcoming), The Scope of Autonomy: Thinking about the morality of freedom with Kant, Schiller, Hegel.Google Scholar
Geiger, I. (2007), The Founding Act of Modern Ethical Life. Hegel's Critique of Kant's Moral and Political Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9781503626034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1900ff), Gesammelte Schriften. Berlin: Vols 1–22,Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1900ff), Gesammelte Schriften. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften; Vol. 23,Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1900ff), Gesammelte Schriften. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin; Vols 24-, Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen.Google Scholar
Kant, I. ([1785] 1996a), ‘Groundwork of The metaphysics of morals’ in Gregor, M. J. (ed.), Practical Philosophy, trans. Gregor, M. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. ([1797] 1996a), “The metaphysics of morals’ in Gregor, M. J. (ed.), Practical Philosophy, trans. Gregor, M. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. ([1973] 1996b), ‘Religion within the bounds of mere reason“, in Wood, A. W. and Giovanni, G. di (eds), Religion and Rational Theology, trans. Giovanni, G. di. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kerstein, S. J. (2002), Kant's Search for the Supreme Principle of Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, R. (2008), ‘Kant's Incorporation Requirement: Freedom and Character in the Empirical World’, Canadian journal of Philosophy 38(3): 425–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (2000), Lectures in the History of Moral Philosophy, ed. Herman, Barbara. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sartre, J.-P. ([1943] 1956), Being and Nothingness. An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, trans. Barnes, H. E.. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Sartre, J.-P. ([1943] 1973), L'Être et le Néant. Essaie d'ontologie phénomènologique. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Sartre, J.-P. ([1947 - written] 1983), Cahiers pour une morale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Sartre, J.-P. ([1936–1937] 1985), La transcendance de l'ego. Esquisse d'une description phénomènologique, ed. Bon, Sylvie le. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Sartre, J.-P. ([1947 - written; 1983] 1992), Notebooks for an Ethics, trans. Pellauer, David. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sartre, J.-P. ([1936–1937] 2004), The Transcendence of the Ego. A sketch for a phenomenological description, trans. Brown, A.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Silber, J. (1960), ‘The Ethical Significance of Kant's Religion’, in Kant, Immanuel, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, trans. Greene, Theodore M. and Hudson, Hoyt H.. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Stern, R. (2011, forthcoming), ‘Kant, Moral Obligation and Holy Will’ in Baiasu, S. and Timmons, M. (eds), Kant on Practical Justification. Interpretative Essays. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stratton-Lake, P. (2000), Kant, Duty and Moral Worth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Timmons, M. (1997), “Decisions Procedures, Moral Criteria, and the Problem of Relevant Descriptions in Kant's Ethics’, Jahrbuch für Recbt und Ethik. 5: 389–417.Google Scholar
Timmons, M. (2005), ‘The Philosophical and Practical Significance of Kant's Universality Formulations of the Categorical Imperative’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik. 13: 313–34.Google Scholar
Timmons, M. (2006), ‘The Categorical Imperative and Universalisability (GMS, 421-424)’ in Horn, Christof & Schoenecker, Dieter (eds), Kant's ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’: New Interpretations. Berlin and New York: De Gruyet.Google Scholar
Verstraeten, P. (1992), ‘Appendix: Hegel and Sartre’ in Howells, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Sartre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walzer, M. (1988), ‘Interpretation and Social Criticism’ in McMurrin, M. (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Vol. VIII. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Walzer, M. (1990), ‘The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism’, Political Theory 18(1): 6–23.10.1177/0090591790018001002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, K. (2010, forthcoming), ‘Kant's Constructivism and Rational Justification’ in Baiasu, S., Pihlstrom, S. and Williams, H. (eds), Politics and Metaphysics in Kant. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Wider, K. V. (1997) The Bodily Nature of Consciousness. Sartre and Contemporary Philosophy of Mind. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar