Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Immorality thus involves a violation of the CI and is thereby irrational. Other philosophers, such as Locke and Hobbes, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these standards were either desirebased instrumental principles of rationality or based on sui generis rational intuitions. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason (...) will reveal only the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Yet he argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle) and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than the law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant's moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect. (shrink)

Intellectual autonomy indicates how human being can preserve her epistemic agency and intellectually manage and regulate herself. This epistemic value is commonly proposed against intellectual heteronomy according to which the believer is not capable of applying her epistemic agency because of internal or external impediments. Since the early modern era, some philosophers and intellectuals have supposed, implicitly or explicitly, that religious belief violates intellectual autonomy. However, the responsibilist version of virtue epistemology shows that autonomy, as an intellectual virtue, is not (...) epistemic self-reliance and independence from the other but prescribes a way to regulate one’s epistemic agency in intellectual interactions with the other. On this basis, a conscientious autonomous believer is capable of knowing and managing the variety of her epistemic relations with others. Intellectual autonomy in this sense is compatible with believing and maintaining religious beliefs. Religious belief can be autonomous if the believer find the other’s role in her beliefs as imparting knowledge, critic, model, adherent, and authority and regulate, conscientiously and equipped with intellectual virtues, the way in which the other participates in them. (shrink)

آنچه ما «استدلال انتفاء» می‌خوانیم دومین استدلال از سه استدلالی است که خواجه نصیرالدین طوسی، در کتاب تأثیرگذار تجرید الاعتقاد، بر حسن و قبح عقلی اقامه کرده است. بر پایۀ این استدلال، نفی حسن و قبح عقلی مستلزم نفی حسن و قبح شرعی است. نتیجۀ مورد نظر خواجه و مقدمات استدلال، به دلیل وجود جهات متفاوت معناشناختی، هستی‌شناختی و معرفت‌شناختی، قابلیت تفسیرهای متعدد دارد. صورت‌بندی منطقی معقول‌ترین خوانش استدلال، که آن را خوانش شکاکانه نامیده‌ایم، نشان می‌دهد که نتیجۀ آن انکار (...) حسن و قبحِ شرعیِ معرفت‌شناختی است، که البته مشکلات همین تقریر نیز آن را در ردّ نظریۀ حسن و قبح شرعی معرفت‌شناختی ناتوان ساخته است. از جمله این اشکالات می‌توان این موارد اشاره کرد: خبری دانستن طریق شرع برای اعلام حسن و قبح افعال، ابهام در مفهوم امکان به‌کاررفته در استدلال، استفاده از مقدمات غیربدیهی غیرمستدل، و خلط میان وقوع دروغ‌گویی و امکان دروغ‌گویی در غیر قابل اعتماد دانستن دیگری در اِخبار خود. روشن است که این مقاله در پی دفاع از حسن و قبح شرعی یا ردّ حسن و قبح عقلی نیست و ادعای آن صرفاً ناتمام بودن استدلال انتفاء بر حسن و قبح عقلی است. (shrink)