Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T23:26:27.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Value of Practical Knowledge: Against Engstrom’s Constructivism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2016

Joe Saunders
Joe Saunders*
Affiliation:
Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied CentreUniversity of Leedsj.saunders@leeds.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Stephen Engstrom has recently offered an excellent account of morality as practical cognition. He emphasizes the formal conditions of practical knowledge, which he finds in Kant. Engstrom also aligns his account with constructivism, claiming that value is constructed through these formal conditions, chiefly universalisability. In this paper, I employ a variant of Hegel’s empty-formalism objection to challenge the moral significance of the mere form of practical knowledge. I hope to show that Engstrom’s constructivism is neither philosophically compelling, nor required by the rest of his position. In its place, I propose a realist understanding of the value of practical knowledge.

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , May 2016 , pp. 117 - 136
Copyright
© The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, H. E. (2011), Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnoli, C. (ed.) (2013), Constructivism in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bojanowski, J. (2012), ‘Is Kant a Moral Realist?’, Kantian Yearbook 4:1: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deligiorgi, K. (2012), Review of The Form of Practical Knowledge, Kantian Review 17:2: 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, D. (2006), ‘Agency, Shmagency: Why Normativity Won’t Come from What is Constitutive of Action’, Philosophical Review 115:2: 169–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, S. P. (2009), The Form of Practical Knowledge. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, S. P. (2012a), ‘Summary of The Form of Practical Knowledge’, Analytic Philosophy 53:1: 58–60.Google Scholar
Engstrom, S. P. (2012b), ‘Bringing Practical Knowledge into View: Response to Bagnoli, Hill, and Reath’, Analytic Philosophy 53:1: 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, S. P. (2013), ‘Constructivism and Practical Knowledge’, in C. Bagnoli (ed.), Constructivism in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geiger, I. (2010), ‘What is the Use of the Universal Law Formula of the Categorical Imperative?’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18:2: 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1977), Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1991), Elements of the Philosophy of Right, trans. H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1900–), Akademie-Ausgabe. Berlin: Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1997), Critique of Practical Reason, trans. M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (2011), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor and J. Timmermann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996a), Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996b), The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langton, R. (2007), ‘Objective and Unconditioned Value’, Philosophical Review 116:2: 157–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1977), Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Viking Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. (1989), Constructions of Reason: Exploration of Kant’s Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reath, A. (2006), Agency and Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reath, A. (2012), ‘A High Plains Drifter: Remarks on Engstrom’s The Form of Practical Knowledge’, Analytic Philosophy 53:1: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. (1971), ‘The Double-Knowledge Approach to the Mind–Body Problem’, The New Scholasticism 45: 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sensen, O. (2013), ‘Kant’s Constructivism’, in C. Bagnoli (ed.), Constructivism in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sensen, O. (ed.) (2013b), Kant on Moral Autonomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, R. (2007), ‘Freedom, Self-Legislation and Morality in Kant and Hegel: Constructivist vs Realist Accounts’, in E. Hammer (ed.), German Idealism: Contemporary Perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stern, R. (2010), ‘Moral Scepticism and Agency: Kant and Korsgaard’, Ratio 23: 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, R. (2012a), ‘On Hegel’s Critique of Kant’s Ethics: Beyond the “Empty Formalism” Objection’, in T. Brooks (ed.), Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Essays on Ethics, Politics and Law. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stern, R. (2012b), Understanding Moral Obligation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, R. (2013a), Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stern, R. (2013b), ‘Moral Skepticism, Constructivism, and the Value of Humanity’, in C. Bagnoli (ed.), Constructivism in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, A. W. (1999), Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar