A core feature of Kant’s Critical account of moral motivation is that pure reason can be practical by itself. I argue that Kant developed this view in the 1770s concerning the principium diiudicationis and principium executionis. These principles indicate the normative and performative aspects of moral motivation. I demonstrate that cognition of the normative principle effects the moral incentive. So, the hallmark of Kant’s Critical account of motivation was contained in his pre-Critical view. This interpretation resolves a controversy about Kant’s (...) apparent eudaimonism in the first Critique and shows that he developed his account of moral autonomy in the 1770s. (shrink)

This paper offers a novel solution to the long-standing puzzle of why the Canon of Pure Reason maintains, in contradiction to Kant’s position elsewhere in the first Critique, both that practical freedom can be proved through experience, and that the question of our transcendental freedom is properly bracketed as irrelevant in practical matters. The Canon is an a priori investigation of our most fundamental practical capacity. It is argued that Kant intends its starting point to be explanatorily independent of transcendental (...) logic and the ontic more generally, an independence that would be compromised if transcendental freedom were included in that starting point, even in a mode of supposition. In a different sense, however, practical reason precisely is dependent on the ontic: it can be realized only in beings. This species of dependence is used to explain the puzzling claim that practical freedom can be experienced. (shrink)

Heiko Puls’ work Sittliches Bewusstsein und Kategorischer Imperativ in Kants Grundlegung: Ein Kommentar zum dritten Abschnitt, presents an attempt to show that, in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant’s argumentation for the objective value of the categorical imperative is almost based upon the same principle as the one presented in the second Critique. More precisely, Puls claims that, like in the Critique of Practical Reason, the Groundwork operates with some kind of fact of reason-theory, which means that our (...) consciousness of the moral law is the ratio cognoscendi of our freedom of will. Accordingly, there is no conclusion from a kind of non-moral consciousness of freedom to the freedom of will and from here to the objective value of the categorical imperative, as many interpreters assume. Due to the ambitiousness of his main thesis and his detailed and subtle way of arguing, Puls’ work represents an important and innovative contribution to recent research on Kant’s Groundwork. Nevertheless, his interpretations sometimes seem to favour analysis of loose philological relationships over closer looks on the contexts of passages. Or he focuses excessively on isolated textual evidences for his readings without appropriately recognising the various other evidences against it. In what follows, I give examples for this criticism. (shrink)

Kant holds that the applicability of the moral ‘ought’ depends on a kind of agent-causal freedom that is incompatible with the deterministic structure of phenomenal nature. I argue that Kant understands this determinism to threaten not just morality but the very possibility of our status as rational beings. Rational beings exemplify “cognitive control” in all of their actions, including not just rational willing and the formation of doxastic attitudes, but also more basic cognitive acts such as judging, conceptualizing, and synthesizing.

European Journal of Philosophy, EarlyView.

In The Architectonic of Reason Lea Ypi argues that Kant ultimately fails in his attempt at grounding the systematic unity of reason because of the lack of the practical domain of freedom in the first Critique. I aim to advance a more nuanced reading of Kant’s alleged failure by (1) distinguishing between the schematism of the ideas in the Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic and the schematism of pure reason in the Architectonic. (2) I suggest that, while the practical domain (...) of freedom is not established in the first Critique, the Canon and the Architectonic do account for its condition: the practical employment of reason and its unity with the theoretical. I point out that while (3) the schematism of the ideas accounts for the sole systematic arrangement of the understanding’s cognitions and the regulative role of the ideas and the ideal, in the Architectonic, (4) the schematism of pure reason instead bears more generally on systematicity as reason’s way of proceeding in framing its own unitary whole and the unity between its two lawful employments. (shrink)

La libertad tiene un valor sistemático fundamental en la filosofía de Kant. En la filosofía práctica, ella es condición de la acción en sentido eminente. Tanto en la _Fundamentación de la metafísica de las costumbres_, cuanto en la _Crítica de la razón práctica_, Kant intenta probar la libertad. La argumentación en ambas obras es distinta. El presente trabajo hace foco especialmente en la justificación de la segunda _Crítica_. En ella, Kant plantea que de la libertad sabemos gracias al hecho de (...) la consciencia moral o de una ley que vincula al sujeto incondicionadamente. Se intentará mostrar, a partir de una consideración de los textos de Kant, las obras de algunos intérpretes, así como en una reflexión sistemática, que la libertad, y el hecho de la consciencia moral, requieren de un acceso a la espontaneidad práctica por parte del sujeto, asunto que Kant deja sugerido en algunos pasajes. (shrink)

L’objectif de cet article est d’interroger la transition Kant-Fichte sur le double plan de la systématicité et du primat de la raison pratique. S’il est admis que Kant voyait dans l’exercice critique l’occasion de renouveler, plutôt que de supprimer, la possibilité d’une métaphysique positive, il est aujourd’hui convenu de rapporter son ébauche de «système» au seul héritage de laSchulmetaphysik. A contrario, on cherche ici à prendre à la lettre l’exigence kantienne d’un système qui attend du «pratique» une nouvelle et absolue (...) «fondation», plutôt qu’il ne devrait être complété en l’état. La perspective fichtéenne impose alors son fil rouge.In this article, I examine two aspects of the transition from Kant to Fichte: systematicity and the primacy of practical reason. It is commonly agreed that Kant saw the critical exercise as an occasion to renew, rather than supress, the possibility of a positive metaphysics; however, most scholars now consider the “system” he sketched to be the sole heritage ofSchulmetaphysik. However, I take literally Kant’s demand for a system that expects from the “practical” a new and absolute “foundation,” rather than a system that must be completed. Here, Fichte’s perspective gives us the common thread. (shrink)

Among the most surprising claims in The Methods of Ethics is Sidgwick’s assertion that his key ethical axioms are corroborated by Kant. This article analyses Sidgwick’s claim that his axioms of justice and benevolence closely correspond to particular features in Kant. I shall argue that his claim of agreement with Kant was a serious overstatement. In particular, the restrictions which Sidgwick places on his acceptance of Kant’s universal law formula of the categorical imperative (FUL) seem to call into question whether (...) the alleged convergence with the axiom of justice has a solid basis. Further, Sidgwick seemed unaware of a crucial aspect of Kant’s conception of the humanity formula that constitutes a substantial divide between their views on benevolence. The upshot is that the divide between Kantian and Sidgwickian ethics appears deeper than Sidgwick seemed to realize. This analysis is confirmed by Sidgwick’s famous worries regarding freedom and the existence of God in Kant’s work. (shrink)

In business ethics journals, Kant’s ethics is often portrayed as overly formalistic, devoid of substantial content, and without regard for the consequences of actions or questions of character. Hence, virtue ethicists ride happily to the rescue, offering to replace or complement Kant’s theory with their own. Before such efforts are undertaken, however, one should recognize that Kant himself wrote a “virtue theory” (Tugendlehre), wherein he discussed the questions of character as well as the teleological nature of human action. Numerous Kant (...) scholars argue that Kant already erected precisely the kind of integrative moral architecture that some of his modern interpreters (while aiming to supersede him) wish to construct. For business ethics, this divergence of scholarly opinion is of crucial importance. It shows first that the standard portrayals of Kant’s ethics in business ethics textbooks—as rigidly deontological, narrowly individualistic, and hence unsuitable for the specific demands of corporate agency—might have to be revised. Second, discussions in the business ethics literature on stakeholder-engagement and managerial decision-making likewise stand to gain from a more nuanced picture of Kant’s moral philosophy. Third, a reassessment of Kant’s ethics with regard to questions of personal character and moral sentiments might also lead to a more favorable view of the relevance of his ethics for managerial practice. Last, but not least, the many current attempts to reconcile Kant’s freedom-oriented philosophy with virtue theories stand to benefit considerably from a better understanding of how Kant himself conceived of one such synthesis between the formal and substantial aspects of morality. This, ultimately, could lead to an important overlapping consensus in the academic literature as to the role and relevance of virtuous conduct in business. (shrink)

In diesem Aufsatz sollen einmal mehr zentrale Begründungsschritte im Ausweis der menschlichen Willensfreiheit in den Sektionen 2 und 3 von GMSIII untersucht werden, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des in Sektion 3 formulierten Zirkels von Freiheit und Sittlichkeit. Das zentrale Ergebnis zur zweiten Sektion besagt, dass Kant dort keinen Beweis der menschlichen Willensfreiheit leistet, er vielmehr den eigentlichen Beweis, der in der dritten Sektion geleistet wird, bloß skizzierend vorwegnimmt. In der dritten Sektion liefert Kant eine geschlossene Argumentation von der notwendig anzunehmenden Vernünftigkeit (...) vernünftiger Wesen zur notwendigen Annahme transzendentaler Freiheit bis zur notwendigen Zuschreibung von Sittlichkeit, wobei der Schluss von der Freiheit der epistemischen Vernunft auf die praktischtranszendentale Freiheit geschieht. Dieser Befund ergibt sich zumindestdann, wenn man den Zirkel als eine eindeutige petitio principii liest, wofür auch sehr viel spricht. Allerdings ergeben sich in dieser Lesart Schwierigkeiten, Kants selbst formulierten Ausweg aus dem Zirkel zu interpretieren, wie er ihn am Ende der dritten Sektion formuliert. (shrink)