Kantian Journal 38 (2):45-72 (2019)

Authors
Vivek Kumar Radhakrishnan
Manipal Centre for Humanities, Manipal Academy of Higher Education
Abstract
A stable classification of practical principles into mutually exclusive types is foundational to Kant’s moral theory. Yet, other than a few brief hints on the distinction between maxims and laws, he does not provide any elaborate discussion on the classification and the types of practical principles in his works. This has led Onora O’Neill and Lewis Beck to reinterpret Kant’s classification of practical principles in a way that would clarify the conceptual connection between maxims and laws. In this paper I argue that the revised interpretations of O’Neill and Beck stem from a mistaken reading of the fundamental basis of the classification of practical principles. To show this, I first argue that Kant distinguishes between maxims and laws on the bases of validity and reality. I then argue that although a practical principle necessarily has the feature of validity, its reality in actually moving the agents to action sufficiently makes a principle a practical principle. If this is so, I argue that the classification of practical principles must be based on the extent to which they are effective in human agents. Such a classification yields us three exhaustive and mutually exclusive types namely, “maxims that are not potential laws”, “maxims that are potential laws” and “laws that are not maxims”.
Keywords Kant  Practical Principles  Maxim  Law  Action
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5922/0207-6918-2019-2-3
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,308
External links

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

Critique of Pure Reason.I. Kant - 1787/1998 - Philosophy 59 (230):555-557.
Kant’s Ethical Thought. [REVIEW]Allen W. Wood - 1999 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 62 (4):758-759.
Kant's Theory of Freedom.Paul Guyer - 1992 - Journal of Philosophy 89 (2):99-110.
Lectures on Ethics.Immanuel Kant - 1932 - International Journal of Ethics 43 (1):104-106.
Doing Things for Reasons.Rudolph Bittner - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):144-147.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Principled and Unprincipled Maxims.David Forman - 2012 - Kant-Studien 103 (3):318-336.
Maxims in Kant's Practical Philosophy.Richard R. McCarty - 2006 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 44 (1):65-83.
Maxims and Practical Contradictions.Richard Galvin - 2011 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 28 (4):407.
Do We Always Act on Maxims?Sven Nyholm - 2017 - Kantian Review 22 (2):233-255.
Formal Principles and the Form of a Law.Andrews Reath - 2010 - In Andrews Reath & Jens Timmermann (eds.), Kant's Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press.
The Principle of Autonomy in Kant's Moral Theory: Its Rise and Fall.Pauline Kleingeld - 2018 - In Eric Watkins (ed.), Kant on Persons and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 61-79.
Practical Reason: Categorical Imperative, Maxims, Laws.Kenneth R. Westphal - 2010 - In W. Dudley & K. Engelhard (eds.), Kant: Key Concepts. Acumen Publishing.
Maxims and Virtues.Talbot Brewer - 2002 - Philosophical Review 111 (4):539-572.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-10-20

Total views
16 ( #582,896 of 2,326,025 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #87,101 of 2,326,025 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes