We will consider alternative ways that Kant’s philosophical views on ethics generally and on punishment more particularly could be brought into harmony with the present near consensus of opposition to the death penalty. We will make use of the notion of the contemporary consensus about certain issues, particularly equality of the sexes and the death penalty, found in widespread agreement, though not unanimity. Of course, it is always possible that some consensuses are wrong, or misguided, or mistaken. We should not (...) put too much philosophical weight on the notion of a consensus here. If there is a consensus for the equality of women as citizens, and against the death penalty, this will simply suggest to us that we will want to reconsider Kant’s views on such topics. In both instances mentioned, his views lie outside the current consensus. We will consider how to revise Kant’s views to bring them into accord with these current consensuses, within a theory that is still, in as significant a sense as possible, Kantian. Since the use of the idea of a consensus is a sort of short-cut, there will not be much direct discussion of arguments for or against the equality of women as citizens, or for or against the advisability of using the death penalty. Yet the discussions of these issues will illuminate certain facts about the structure of Kant’s moral and political theories, and about how the basic principles within those theories relate to particular moral applications or topics. If we can still end up with a thoroughly Kantian view on the death penalty, that also will tell us something about the relation of Kantian ethical and legal principles to the death penalty as that issue is discussed today. Opposition to the death penalty in present day circumstances is not at variance with the basic principles of Kantian ethical, political, and legal theory, including his retributivism in the justification of punishment. Indeed, there is a way of revising Kant’s views to bring them into harmony with abolition. (shrink)

Kant gives four examples to illustrate the application of the categoricaI imperative immediately after in troducing its “universal Iaw” formulation in Chapter Two his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. These examples have been much discussed to gain an understanding of how the categorical imperative applies to derive specific duties. It is argued that the discussions found in these examples do not accord well with Kant’s fuller account of that application in his Iater work The Metaphysics of Morals. That [Iater] (...) work has quite different, sometimes better, arguments for the same moral conclusions, and never mentions the argument against making a lying promise (the second example). Giving exclusive or excessive altention to these four examples has distorted our understanding of Kant’s moral philosophy. (shrink)

This is the sixth volume of the projected twelve volumes of translations of Kant's major writings—hence, about the halfway point for the completion of the project. The aim is to produce fully scholarly and reliable translations of a broader range of Kant's writings than have previously been readily available in English, with all the useful accoutrements for close study. Thus, we have the use of a standard pagination in the margins, three sorts of footnotes— Kant's original footnotes; explanatory editorial notes, (...) including information on names Kant referred to, English translations of passages in languages other than German, and references for biblical quotations or allusions; and the original German word when a translation might be surprising or unusual English-German and German-English glossaries of terms, separate indices of names, subjects, and, in this volume, biblical references, a general introduction to this volume, as well as a special introduction to each of the works included. In every respect, these scholarly aids are carefully done, accurate, and helpful. (shrink)

Kant's "supreme principle of morality," which he calls the "categorical imperative," is often applied by him to specific cases to reach conclusions about particular moral duties, e.g., to abstain from suicide, to not make lying promises, to render assistance to others. There are a number of such applications in the first part of his Metaphysik der Sitten , entitled the Rechtslehre, that have had less attention paid to them. In the Rechtslehre Kant is concerned with state-created laws enforced by punishment, (...) that will serve to guarantee the rights of citizens. This makes the application process somewhat different from the more familiar examples from Kant's earlier Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, which are concerned with the agent's inner decision process and the self-constraint of moral motivation. The present essay examines in some detail Kant's argument to show that there should be no such thing as an hereditary aristocracy, and compares it with the argument against making a lying promise in the Grundlegung. There are significant similarities and differences, and there are also significant connections to the ideas of John Rawls in A Theory of Justice . More briefly discussed are Kant's arguments in the Rechtslehre concerning punishment and the right of property. The whole discussion is intended as an introduction to the issues concerning the application of the categorical imperative in contexts where the result is external state-enforced laws, rather than an internal morally motivated moral decision. The issue in the former is said to be what persons abstractly considered could give their consent to in advance, where Kant makes a key distinction between a priori considerations having to do with agent liberty which lead to a moral decision concerning citizen rights, and empirical considerations having to do with happiness, which do not lead to conclusions concerning citizen rights. (shrink)

Kant behauptet, daß wir nur indirekte Pflichten haben können, von Grausamkeiten und Gewalt gegen Tiere abzusehen. Pflichten dieser Art seien direkte Pflichten gegen uns selbst, um unseren moralischen Charakter nicht zu verderben, aber könnten nicht direkte Pflichten gegenüber den Tieren sein, weil Tiere keine rationalen Wesen sind. Diese Sichtweise erscheint unbefriedigend, da die Tiere die Opfer einer solchen Mißhandlung sind, wenn sie stattfindet, und die Vorstellung, daß wir keine direkten Pflichten ihnen gegenüber haben sollen, erscheint merkwürdig. Ich plädiere dafür, daß (...) Kant, durchaus in Übereinstimmung mit seiner allgemeinen Moralphilosophie, hätte ein Konzept von direkten Pflichten gegenüber Tieren entwickeln können. Ein solches Konzept wäre weitaus plausibler und hätte Kant geholfen, mit allfälligen Problemen umzugehen, die sich im Hinblick auf die Behandlung von zurechnungsunfähigen Personen ergeben, die ebenfalls keine rationalen Wesen sind, sondern allenfalls potentiell. Zwar kann Kant durchaus plausibel machen, daß es die von ihm behaupteten indirekten Pflichten im Hinblick auf Tiere gibt, aber nicht, daß unsere Pflichten gegenüber Tieren auf derartige indirekte Pflichten beschränkt sind. Kant claimed that we could only have indirect duties to abstain from cruelty and violence to animals; such duties were directly duties to ourselves not to degrade our moral character, but could not be direct duties to animals because animals are not rational beings. This view seems unsatisfactory because animals are the victims of such mistreatment when it occurs, and the idea that we have no direct obligations to them seems odd. I urge that Kant, consistent with his general moral philosophy, could have developed a view of DIRECT duties to animals. Such a view would have been more plausible and would also have helped him deal with lurking problems concerning the treatment of incompetent humans, some of whom are also not rational beings, even potentially. Kant can plausibly claim that there are such indirect duties to animals, but not that our duties to them are limited to such indirect duties. (shrink)

Pflicht und Neigung by Hans Reiner was first published in Germany in 1951. The present translation by Mark Santos is a translation of the first four chapters of the second edition of this work, which was published under the title Die Grundlagen der Sittlichkeit in 1974. Also included in this English translation are four essays by Reiner, all on ethical topics, and closely related to the topics of Duty and Inclination: "On the Adaptation of the Phenomenological Method to and its (...) Refinement as a Method of Ethics," "Is Value Ethics out of Date?," "The Golden Rule and Natural Law," and "Good and Value, the Philosophical Relevance of the Concept of Value," all essays previously published by Reiner in German in the 1970's. The translation also has a brief preface by William K. Frankena, in which he says that if he were asked to select "one German moral philosopher of the last fifty years for translation into English, it would be Hans Reiner.". (shrink)

The first part of Immanuel Kant's Metaphysics of Morals , Rechtslehre , has usually been discussed as a political treatise. But there are parallels between law and ethics in Kant; lawgiving in either realm is a combination of precept and incentive. In works that present his core moral philosophy of inner freedom, this freedom is an internal ethical freedom based on an underlying purely moral incentive, whose adequacy is a transcendental assumption of this part of Kant's moral philosophy. But this (...) inner freedom is paralleled by Kant's account of external freedom, where our external rights, including rights to property, are secured based on the deterrent effect of punishment under criminal law for violations of the rights of others. When we look at the Rechtslehre thus as part of Kant's practical philosophy we notice: Kant's view is that the validity of a legal precept entails an adequate incentive for acting in accord with the precept. The scope of law, and hence of imputation under law, is limited in various ways by the reach of the external incentives of deterrence, including actions based on a so-called "right of necessity." There are parallels between Kant's arguments for extending the categorical imperative as a principle for the use of our freedom to ends in the Tugendlehre and to objects in the Rechtslehre . Kant's theory of punishment, though retributivist in how it assigns appropriate punishment, is teleological/deterrent in providing incentives for not violating positive laws. Der erste Teil in Kants Werk Die Metaphysik der Sitten , die Rechtslehre , wird üblicherweise als eine politische Abhandlung diskutiert. Aber es gibt Parallelen zwischen Recht und Ethik bei Kant. Gesetzgebung ist in beiden Bereichen eine Kombination von Gesetz und Triebfeder. In den Arbeiten, die das eigentliche Herzstück von Kants Tugendlehre behandeln, ist die Freiheit eine innere ethische Freiheit, die auf einer rein moralischen Triebfeder basiert, deren Angemessenheit und Zulänglichkeit eine transzendentale Annahme dieses Teils von Kants Moralphilosophie ist. Die innere Freiheit hat jedoch eine Parallele in Kants Darstellung der äußeren Freiheit. Hier geht es um die Sicherung unserer äußeren Rechte, einschließlich des Rechts auf Eigentum, durch den Abschreckungseffekt einer Strafe für die Verletzung der Rechte Anderer. Wenn wir die Rechtslehre gerade als Teil von Kants praktischer Philosophie verstehen, dann stellen wir fest: Kant geht davon aus, daß gültige juridische Normen stets ausreichende Triebfedern dafür enthalten, daß unser Handeln diesen Normen entspricht. Der Bereich des Rechts, und damit auch der Zurechnung unter Rechtsgesetzen, wird auf unterschiedliche Weise von der Wirksamkeit äußerer Triebfedern zur Abschreckung begrenzt. Das gilt auch für Handlungen, die auf dem sogenannten "Notrecht" beruhen. Zwischen Kants Argumenten in der Tugendlehre für die Erweiterung des kategorischen Imperativs als eines Prinzips für den Gebrauch unserer Freiheit durch die Annahme, daß es Zwecke gibt, die zugleich Pflicht sind, und dem Argument in der Rechtslehre für die Notwendigkeit der Anerkennung von Eigentumsrechten bestehen signifikante Parallelen. Kants Theorie der Strafe ist, obwohl vergeltungstheoretisch mit Blick auf die Frage der Angemessenheit einer Strafe, jedenfalls auch teleologisch/abschreckungstheoretisch konzipiert, nämlich insoweit, als die Androhung von Strafen Triebfedern für die Befolgung der positiven Rechtsgesetze bereitstellt. (shrink)

Kant informs us that the categorical imperative is a synthetic a priori proposition. It might be thought that Kant means thereby to say that we have an a priori rational insight, somewhat like that which Plato claimed for the Forms, into this basic moral truth. W. D. Ross had a similar view about human rational insight into certain basic moral principles, and in his book Kant's Ethical Theory he attritubes such a view to Kant.I argue that this initially plausible interpretation (...) is not correct, and that the "rational intuitionism" that it involves goes against Kant's whole approach to philosophy, in the first Critique as well as in the moral philosophy. I develop a new alternative interpretation, as follows: the categorical imperative is synthetic because it contains a claim about the causal/motivational power we have to act purely from the motive of duty, without any assistance from "sensible" or empirical motives, such as pleasure or pain. This claim, qua motivational, goes beyond the meaning of the categorical imperative considered as a mere ethical precept. It is a priori because this motive's source is the noumenal self.Hence to justify the categorical imperative is to show that this sort of non-sensible motive is or could be active in us as agents, and Kant is an "internalist": one who believes that morality and motivation are internally, analytically connected. Nach Kant ist der kategorische Imperativ ein synthetischer Satz a priori. Kant könnte damit sagen wollen, wir hätten in die grundlegende moralische Wahrheit, die der kategorische Imperativ darstellt, eine vernünftige Einsicht a priori, die unserer Wahrnehmung der Formen, wie Plato sie sieht, vergleichbar wäre. W. D. Ross vertrat eine ähnliche Auffassung von einer vernünftigen menschlichen Einsicht in gewisse grundlegende moralische Prinzipien, und in seinem Buch "Kant's Ethical Theory" schreibt er diese Auffassung auch Kant zu.Ich behaupte, daß diese auf den ersten Blick als plausibel erscheinende Interpretation nicht richtig ist, und daß der "rationale Intuitionismus", den sie impliziert, Kants philosophischem Ansatz, sowohl in der ersten Kritik als auch in der Moralphilosophie, ganz grundsätzlich widerspricht. Ich entwickele eine neue, alternative Interpretation: Der kategorische Imperativ ist synthetisch, weil er eine Behauptung über eine kausale/motivationale Kraft enthält, die uns zukommt und die uns befähigt, ohne irgendeine Unterstützung durch bloß empirische oder Beweggründe der Zweckrationalität wie Freude oder Schmerz allein aus der Vorstellung der Pflicht heraus zu handeln. Soweit sie den vernünftigen Beweggrund zu handeln betrifft, geht die Behauptung über die Bedeutung des kategorischen Imperativs als eines rein ethischen Gebots hinaus. Sie ist a priori, da die Quelle des vernünftigen Beweggrunds das noumenale Ich ist.Jede Rechtfertigung des kategorischen Imperativs muß folglich zeigen, daß die fragliche Art vernünftiger Beweggründe, die nicht Beweggründe bloßer Zweckrationalität sind, in uns als Handelnden aktiv ist oder jedenfalls aktiv sein könnte und daß Kant insoweit ein "Internalist" ist: das ist jemand, der meint, Moral und Motivation seien innerlich, analytisch miteinander verbunden. (shrink)

Kant gives four examples to illustrate the application of the categoricaI imperative immediately after in troducing its “universal Iaw” formulation in Chapter Two his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. These examples have been much discussed to gain an understanding of how the categorical imperative applies to derive specific duties. It is argued that the discussions found in these examples do not accord well with Kant’s fuller account of that application in his Iater work The Metaphysics of Morals. That [Iater] (...) work has quite different, sometimes better, arguments for the same moral conclusions, and never mentions the argument against making a lying promise. Giving exclusive or excessive altention to these four examples has distorted our understanding of Kant’s moral philosophy. (shrink)