International Philosophical Quarterly 54 (2):143-157 (2014)
AbstractIn this paper I look at the connection between willing and believing for Kant’s and Kantian ethics. I argue that the two main formulations of the categorical imperative are relativized to agents according to their beliefs. I then point out three different ways in which Kant or a present-day Kantian might defend this position. I conclude with some remarks about the contrast between Kant’s legal theory and his ethical theory
Similar books and articles
Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics: The Gap Can Be Bridged.Scott Forschler - 2013 - Metaphilosophy 44 (1-2):88-104.
El estatuto epistemológico de la fe: un diálogo con Kant.José Miguel Odero - 1993 - Anuario Filosófico 26 (1):113-138.
Could the ethics of institutionalized health care be anything but Kantian? Collecting building blocks for a unifying metaethics.Byron Kaldis - 2005 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8 (1):39-52.
Does a Sentiment‐Based Ethics of Caring Improve upon a Principles‐Based One? The problem of impartial morality.James Scott Johnston - 2008 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (3):436–452.
Sex and the Virtuous Kantian Agent.Lara Denis - 2006 - In Raja Halwani (ed.), Sex and Ethics: Essays in Sexuality, Virtue, and the Good Life. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Kantian Wholism: Toward a Critical Environmental Ethic.Jack Weir - 1989 - Southwest Philosophical Studies:1-12.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Apple of Kant's Ethics: i‐Maxims as the Locus of Assessment.Samuel Kahn - 2022 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 1.
References found in this work
No references found.