Naturalising Kant
The third formulation of the Categorical Imperative rarely receives the attention devoted to its predecessors. This paper aims to develop a naturalistic approach to morality inspired by Kant’s conception of moral agents as legislating in a Kingdom of Ends. Positions derived from the third formulatio...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | deu |
| Published: |
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
2022-03-01
|
| Series: | Кантовский сборник |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5042/34608/ |
| _version_ | 1818277874446106624 |
|---|---|
| author | Kitcher Ph. |
| author_facet | Kitcher Ph. |
| author_sort | Kitcher Ph. |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The third formulation of the Categorical Imperative rarely receives the attention devoted to its predecessors. This paper aims to develop a naturalistic approach to morality inspired by Kant’s conception of moral agents as legislating in a Kingdom of Ends. Positions derived from the third formulation, John Rawls’s Kantian Constructivism and T. M. Scanlon’s Contractualism, cleave closely to Kant in idealising the process of legislation. For Rawls, the citizens of the Kantian Reich can be reduced to one, a representative of all, who deliberates behind the veil of ignorance using minimax reasoning. Scanlon includes other lawmakers, but any potential diversity among them is overridden by transhistorical canons of reason. By contrast, I view morality as developing historically through the interactions among people with different views and conflicting aims. The task of moral theory is to construct an appropriate methodology to govern their deliberations. My naturalised Kant takes the first steps. Morality arises from the recognition of problematic situations, identified first by listening to the complaints of actual people, by judging whether they are warranted, and by seeking to amend them when the warrant is confirmed. Societies (and individuals) make moral progress when they deliberate (or simulate deliberations) in accordance with three norms. All those potentially affected should be included; the best available information should be used; and participants should aim for an outcome all can accept. How far is naturalised Kant from the great philosopher? I leave the answer to the scholars. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T23:08:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-151fb38bbd684f139ba21cfeb76b6add |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0207-6918 2310-3701 |
| language | deu |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T23:08:28Z |
| publishDate | 2022-03-01 |
| publisher | Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Кантовский сборник |
| spelling | doaj.art-151fb38bbd684f139ba21cfeb76b6add2022-12-22T00:08:38ZdeuImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityКантовский сборник0207-69182310-37012022-03-0141111814610.5922/0207-6918-2022-1-5Naturalising KantKitcher Ph.0Columbia UniversityThe third formulation of the Categorical Imperative rarely receives the attention devoted to its predecessors. This paper aims to develop a naturalistic approach to morality inspired by Kant’s conception of moral agents as legislating in a Kingdom of Ends. Positions derived from the third formulation, John Rawls’s Kantian Constructivism and T. M. Scanlon’s Contractualism, cleave closely to Kant in idealising the process of legislation. For Rawls, the citizens of the Kantian Reich can be reduced to one, a representative of all, who deliberates behind the veil of ignorance using minimax reasoning. Scanlon includes other lawmakers, but any potential diversity among them is overridden by transhistorical canons of reason. By contrast, I view morality as developing historically through the interactions among people with different views and conflicting aims. The task of moral theory is to construct an appropriate methodology to govern their deliberations. My naturalised Kant takes the first steps. Morality arises from the recognition of problematic situations, identified first by listening to the complaints of actual people, by judging whether they are warranted, and by seeking to amend them when the warrant is confirmed. Societies (and individuals) make moral progress when they deliberate (or simulate deliberations) in accordance with three norms. All those potentially affected should be included; the best available information should be used; and participants should aim for an outcome all can accept. How far is naturalised Kant from the great philosopher? I leave the answer to the scholars.https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5042/34608/categorical imperativethird formulationmoral philosophynaturalismmoral progressmoral methodologyrawlsscanlon |
| spellingShingle | Kitcher Ph. Naturalising Kant Кантовский сборник categorical imperative third formulation moral philosophy naturalism moral progress moral methodology rawls scanlon |
| title | Naturalising Kant |
| title_full | Naturalising Kant |
| title_fullStr | Naturalising Kant |
| title_full_unstemmed | Naturalising Kant |
| title_short | Naturalising Kant |
| title_sort | naturalising kant |
| topic | categorical imperative third formulation moral philosophy naturalism moral progress moral methodology rawls scanlon |
| url | https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5042/34608/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kitcherph naturalisingkant |