Abstract
Commentators disagree about the extent to which Kant’s ethics is compatible with consequentialism. A question that has not yet been asked is whether Kant had a view of his own regarding the fundamental difference between his ethical theory and a broadly consequentialist one. In this paper I argue that Kant does have such a view. I illustrate this by discussing his response to a well-known objection to his moral theory, namely that Kant offers an implicitly consequentialist theory of moral appraisal. This objection was most famously raised by Mill and Schopenhauer, but also during Kant’s time by Pistorius and Tittel. I show that Kant’s response to this objection in the second Critique illustrates that he sees the fundamental difference between his moral theory and a broadly consequentialist one to be one that concerns methodology.
Bacin, S. 2001. “Die Lehre vom Begriff des Guten in der “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft””. In Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung. Akten des 9. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Ed. V. Gerhardt/R.-P. Horstmann/R. Schumacher. Berlin/New York, vol. III, 131–40.10.1515/9783110874129.1381Search in Google Scholar
–. 2019. ““Under the Guise of the Good”: Kant and a Tenet of Moral Rationalism”. In Natur und Freiheit. Akten des 12. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Ed. V. Waibel et al. Berlin/Boston, vol. III, 1705–14.Search in Google Scholar
Bader, R. M. 2015. “Kantian Axiology and the Dualism of Practical Reason”. In The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. Ed. I. Hirose/J. Olson. Oxford, 175–204.Search in Google Scholar
–. 2009. “Kant and the Categories of Freedom”. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 17(4), 799–820.10.1080/09608780903135121Search in Google Scholar
Basaglia, F. 2016. “The Highest Good and the Notion of the Good as Object of Pure Practical Reason”. In The Highest Good in Kant’s Philosophy. Ed. T. Höwing. Berlin, 17–32.10.1515/9783110369007-005Search in Google Scholar
Beck, L. W. 1960. A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago.Search in Google Scholar
Beiser, F. C. 1987. The Fate of Reason. Cambridge, Mass.10.2307/j.ctv10vm0swSearch in Google Scholar
Bobzien, S. 1988. “Die Kategorien der Freiheit bei Kant”. In Kant: Analysen – Probleme – Kritik. Ed. H. Oberer/G. Seel, Würzburg, 193–220.Search in Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. 1965. Five Types of Ethical Theory. Totowa, NJ.10.4324/9781315824154Search in Google Scholar
Cummiskey, D. 1996. Kantian Consequentialism. Oxford.10.1093/0195094530.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, J. 1968. “Interpretation and Misinterpretation of the Categorical Imperative”. In Kant: A Collection of Essays. Ed. R. P. Wolff. London.10.1007/978-1-349-15263-6_11Search in Google Scholar
Forschler, S. 2013. “Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics: The Gap Can Be Bridged”. Metaphilosophy 44(1/2), 88–104.10.1111/meta.12015Search in Google Scholar
Freyenhagen, F. 2011. “Empty, Useless, and Dangerous? Recent Kantian Replies to the Empty Formalism Objection”. Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 63, 163–86.10.1017/S0263523200000215Search in Google Scholar
Fuchs, A. E. 2006. “Mill’s Theory of Morally Correct Action”. In The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism. Ed. H. R. West. Oxford, 139–59.10.1002/9780470776483.ch10Search in Google Scholar
Gesang, B. (ed.) 2007. Kants vergessener Rezensent: Die Kritik der theoretischen und praktischen Philosophie Kants in fünf frühen Rezensionen von Herman Andreas Pistorius. Hamburg.10.28937/978-3-7873-2052-3Search in Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1997. Sorting Out Ethics. Oxford.10.1093/0198250320.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Heydt, C. 2014. “Utilitarianism before Bentham”. In The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. Ed. B. Eggleston/D. Miller. Cambridge, 16 – 37.10.1017/CCO9781139096737.002Search in Google Scholar
Hruschka, J. 1991. “The Greatest Happiness Principle and Other Early German Anticipations of Utilitarian Theory”. Utilitas 3(2), 165–77.10.1017/S0953820800001096Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, R./Cureton, A. 2016. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ Accessed Nov. 13, 2017.Search in Google Scholar
Jodl, F. 1889. Die Geschichte der Ethik. Vol II. Stuttgart.Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1900–. Gesammelte Schriften (Akademie Ausgabe), vol. 1–22 ed. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 23 ed. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, vol. 24– ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Berlin.Search in Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. 2017. “Contradiction and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law.” Kant-Studien 108(1), 89–115.10.1515/kant-2017-0006Search in Google Scholar
Klemme, H. F. 2010. “The Origin and Aim of Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason”. In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide. Ed. A. Reath/J. Timmerman. Cambridge, 11–30.10.1017/CBO9780511770869.003Search in Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. 1985. “Kant’s Formula of Universal Law.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66(1/2), 24–47.10.1017/CBO9781139174503.004Search in Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1969. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X: Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society. Ed. J. M. Robson. Toronto.Search in Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. 1989. Constructions of Reason. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781139173773Search in Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 2011. On What Matters: Volume III. Oxford.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199572816.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Paton, H. J. 1946. The Categorical Imperative. Essex.Search in Google Scholar
Pieper, A. 2002. “Zweites Haupstück (57–71)”. In Immanuel Kant: Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. Ed. O. Höffe. Berlin, 115–34.Search in Google Scholar
Pistorius, H. A. 1786. “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten von Immanuel Kant. Riga, bey Hartknoch. 1785. 8. 128 S.” Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek Bd. 22, St. 2, 447–63.Search in Google Scholar
Reath, A. 2015. “Did Kant Hold that Rational Volition is Sub Ratione Boni”. In Reason, Value, and Respect: Kantian Themes from the Philosophy of Thomas E. Hill, Jr. Ed. M. Timmons/R. M. Johnson. Oxford, 232–55.Search in Google Scholar
Reath, A./Timmermann, J. (eds.) 2010. Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511770869.003Search in Google Scholar
Rohs, P. 1995. “Warum Kant kein Utilitarist war”. In Zum moralischen Denken. Vol. 2. Ed. C. Fehige/G. Meggle. Frankfurt, 35–41.Search in Google Scholar
Sala, G. B. 2004. Kants “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft”: Ein Kommentar. Darmstadt.Search in Google Scholar
Scheffler, S. (ed.) 1988. Consequentialism and its Critics. Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, A. 2010. The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics. Trans./ed. C. Janaway. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511581298.007Search in Google Scholar
Sensen, O. 2015. “Moral Obligation and Free Will”. In Kant’s Lectures on Ethics: A Critical Guide. Ed. L. Denis/O. Sensen. Cambridge, 138–55.10.1017/CBO9781139567527.012Search in Google Scholar
–. 2011. Kant on Human Dignity. Berlin.10.1515/9783110267167Search in Google Scholar
Simmel, G. 1904. Kant. Leipzig.Search in Google Scholar
Singer, M. 1961. Generalization in Ethics. New York.Search in Google Scholar
Timmermann, J. 2015. “What’s Wrong with Deontology?” In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Vol. 115, No. 1 pt. 1. London, 75–92.10.1111/j.1467-9264.2015.00385.xSearch in Google Scholar
–. 2014. “Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism”. In The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. Ed. B. Eggleston/D. Miller. Cambridge, 239–57.10.1017/CCO9781139096737.013Search in Google Scholar
–. 2005. “Why Kant Could not Have Been a Utilitarian.” Utilitas 17(3), 243–64.10.1017/S0953820805001639Search in Google Scholar
Tittel, G. A. 1786. Ueber Herrn Kant’s Moralreform. Frankfurt/Leipzig.Search in Google Scholar
Walschots, M. 2017. “Kant on Moral Satisfaction”. Kantian Review 22(2), 281–303.10.1017/S136941541700005XSearch in Google Scholar
West, H. R. 2007. Mill’s Utilitarianism: A Reader’s Guide. London.Search in Google Scholar
Westra, A. 2016. The Typic in Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Berlin.10.1515/9783110455939Search in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, S. 2011. Kants ‘Kategorien der Freiheit’. Berlin.10.1515/9783110272338Search in Google Scholar
–. (ed.) 2016. Die “Kategorien der Freiheit” in Kants praktischer Philosophie: Historischsystematische Beiträge. Berlin.10.1515/9783110491135Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
