In Kate Moran (ed.), Kant on Freedom and Spontaneity. pp. 107-136 (2018)

Authors
Lucas Thorpe
Bogazici University
Abstract
On the surface Kant himself seems quite clear about who is deserving of respect: The morally relevant others are all “rational, free beings” or all “human beings.” It is clear, however, that Kant does not want to identify “human beings” in this sense with members of a particular biological species, for he is explicitly open to the idea that there might be non-biologically human rational beings. Thus, for example he is explicitly open to the possibility of extraterrestrial rational beings, who would not be members of the same biological species as us, but who would, presumably be worthy of respect. And it would seem possible that there are members of our biological species who are not “human” in the morally relevant sense. Given these facts, a Kantian needs to give some account of how we are to recognize who or what counts as “human” in the morally relevant sense. I argue that to be “human” in the morally relevant sense is to have the capacity for morality, and that this involves: (a) the capacity to recognize others as ends rather than merely as means and (b) the capacity to enter into relations of ethical community with us. I defend a position I name moral reliabilism. According to this position: (a) We have a quasi-perceptual capacity to directly ascribe moral status to various bits of the world around us. I will argue that this capacity is best thought of in Gibsonian terms as a capacity to pick up on certain types of social affordances; morally relevant others have the capacity to engage in ethical interaction with us, and recognizing the humanity of others involves picking up on this capacity. Those beings who are “human” in the morally relevant sense, then, afford interaction based on mutual respect. (b) We should assume as a postulate of practical reason that this capacity is reliable (although fallible).
Keywords Kant  tomasello  Affordances  recognition  Gibson  Kantian Ethics  Elephants  categorical Imperative  Moral perception
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Kant-Bibliographie 2018.Margit Ruffing - 2020 - Kant-Studien 111 (4):647-702.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Comments on Guyer.R. Sebastian - 2007 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 50 (5):489 – 496.
Response to Commentators.Tomasello Michael - 2016 - Journal of Social Ontology 2 (1):117-123.
Reconsidering RGV, AA 06: 26n and the Meaning of ‘Humanity’.Samuel Kahn - 2013 - In Margit Ruffing, Claudio La Rocca, Alfredo Ferrarin & Stefano Bacin (eds.), Kant Und Die Philosophie in Weltbürgerlicher Absicht: Akten des Xi. Kant-Kongresses 2010. De Gruyter. pp. 307-316.
Comments on Guyer.Sebastian Rödl - 2007 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 50 (5):489-496.
Kant and the Claims of Taste.Paul Guyer - 1979 - Cambridge University Press.
Setting Ends for Oneself Through Reason.Andrews Reath - 2009 - In Simon Robertson (ed.), Spheres of Reason. Oxford University Press.
A History of Emerging Modes?Michael Schmitz - 2016 - Journal of Social Ontology 2 (1):87-103.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-04-19

Total views
218 ( #46,458 of 2,449,205 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
37 ( #19,289 of 2,449,205 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes