Abstract

This essay critically examines the criticism of Kant's ethics, formulated by V. Kraft in various publications. According to this critical argument, the categorical imperative, or rather the idea of universalizability, is lacking in substance. In a metacritique of Kraft's discussion, the essay tries to elaborate on the limitedness of Kraft's criticism, primarily with regard to the discussion of the "false promise". It is to be demonstrated that Kraft's criticism is based on a reinterpretation, or rather a sweeping misinterpretation, of Kant's explanations and that it is, consequently, hardly able to refute them