Abstract

Arguments have appeared recently that call into question the significance of the highest good for Kant’s moral theory. In particular, Thomas Auxter has remarked that the highest good is “an extramoral addition to Kant’s theory, that is, one designed primarily to serve religious purposes the fulfillment of which are irrelevant to the actual operation of practical judgment and the choice of a course of conduct.” The ramifications of such criticisms are not restricted exclusively to Kantian scholarship, but express concern about the relevance of psychological, religious, and eudaemonist concepts for a rational theory of obligation. Auxter’s specific critique is based on a distinction between two possible senses of the highest good: the first is introduced by Kant in the “Analytic” of the Critique of Practical Reason is the idea of the ectypal world, a moral order in which the ethical dictates of moral judgment harmonize with natural law; and the other, discussed in the “Dialectic” of the second Critique, presents an object of hope for the human will, the idea of a state of affairs in which virtue is rewarded with a proportionate amount of happiness. It is Auxter’s conclusion that neither of these interpretations has anything to contribute to the practical validity of Kant’s theory, as both require more of the individual moral agent or of humanity in general than can be reasonably expected of finite moral beings whose efforts are conditioned and limited by the physical world. Appealing to Kant’s premise that “impossibility implies no obligation,” Auxter points out that as a state in which the spatiotemporal existence of the moral agent is organized in harmony with the prescriptions of the moral will, the highest good as the ectypal world exceeds the physical capabilities of human beings. More often than not, natural phenomena and the laws that govern them are recalcitrant to our moral efforts, and so cannot be expected to conform to the concordance required by the ectypal ideal. Similarly, the highest good conceived as an otherworldly condition, in which virtue is redeemable for the appropriate amount of happiness, mandates the intervention of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity who knows the intelligible dispositions of moral agents and judges them accordingly. This obviously exceeds the moral capabilities of human agents. What cannot be accomplished cannot be commanded, and so Auxter claims that the highest good can in no way enter into Kant’s moral theory, which implies that since religious ideals have no prescriptive force, they have no relevance for an account of obligation.