Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-xvx2z Total loading time: 0.189 Render date: 2021-07-28T05:47:43.349Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Kant’s deductions of morality and freedom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Owen Ware
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

It is commonly held that Kant ventured to derive morality from freedom in Groundwork III. It is also believed that he reversed this strategy in the second Critique, attempting to derive freedom from morality instead. In this paper, I set out to challenge these familiar assumptions: Kant’s argument in Groundwork III rests on a moral conception of the intelligible world, one that plays a similar role as the ‘fact of reason’ in the second Critique. Accordingly, I argue, there is no reversal in the proof-structure of Kant’s two works.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 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, Henry E. 1990. Kant’s Theory of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139172295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 2011. Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691531.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 1981. “Kant’s Deduction of Freedom and Morality.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 19: 5379. 10.1353/hph.2008.0501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 2000. Kant and the Fate of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 2003. Interpreting Kant's Critiques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 2012. Kant’s Elliptical Path. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693689.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Manfred. 2014. “Sittengesetz und Freiheit. Kant 1785 und 1788.” In Kants Rechtfertigung des Sittengesetzes in Grundlegung III: Deduktion Oder Faktum?, edited by Puls, Heiko, 209226. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White. 1960. A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Berger, Larissa. 2015. “Der ‘Zirkel’ im dritten Abschnitt der Grundlegung – Eine neue Interpretation und ein Literaturbericht.” [] In Kants Begründung von Freiheit und Moral in ‘Grundlegung III’: neue Interpretationen, edited by Schönecker, Dieter, 982. Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
Bojanowski, Jochen. (Forthcoming). “Kant on the Justification of Moral Principles.” Kant-Studien.Google Scholar
Brastberger, Gebhard Ulrich. 1792. Untersuchungen über Kants Kritik der practischen Vernunft [Investigations on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason]. Tübingen: Cottaischen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Darwall, Stephen. 2006. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen. 2002. “Introduction.” In Critique of Practical Reason, edited and translated by Pluhar, Werner, XVILV. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. 1794/95. Grundlage der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre: als Handschrift für seine Zuhörer [Foundation of the Entire Science of Knowledge: As a Manuscript for His Listeners]. Leipzig: Gabler.Google Scholar
Grenberg, Jeanine. 2013. Kant’s Defence of Common Moral Experience: A Phenomenological Account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139520126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2007. Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Reader’s Guide. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2009. “Problems with Freedom: Kant’s Argument in Groundwork III and its Subsequent Emendations.” In Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide, edited by Timmermann, Jens, 176202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511770760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahmann, Andree. 2012. “Ist ‘Freiheit die Wahrheit der Notwendigkeit’? Das Ding an sich als Grund der Erscheinung bei Kant.” In Sind wir Bürger zweier Welten? Freiheit und moralische Verantwortung im transzendentalen Idealismus, edited by Brandhorst, Mario, Hahmann, Andree and Ludwig, Bernd, 135154. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1844. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte [Lectures on the History of Philosophy]. Berlin: Eduard Gans.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1960. “Der Begriff der sittlichen Einsicht und Kants Lehre vom Faktum der Vernunft.” [] In Die Gegenwart der Griechen im neueren Denken. Festschrift für Hans-Georg Gadamer zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Henrich, Dieter, Schulz, W. and Volkmann-Schluck, K.-H., 130172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1975. “Die Deduktion des Sittengesetzes: Über die Gründe der Dunkelheit des letzten Abschnittes von Kants ‘Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten’.” [] In Denken im Schatten des Nihilismus. Festschrift für Wilhelm Weischedel zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Schwan, Alexander, 55112. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1994. “The Concept of Moral Insight and Kant’s Doctrine of the Fact of Reason.” In The Unity of Reason: Essays on Kant’s Philosophy, translated by Kuehn, Manfred, edited by Velkley, Richard L., 5587. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara. 1989. “Justification and Objectivity: Comments on Rawls and Allison.” In Kant’s Transcendental Deductions: The Three Critiques and the Opus Postumum, edited by Förster, Eckart, 131144. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Thomas E. 1998. “Kant’s Argument for the Rationality of Moral Conduct.” In Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays, edited by Guyer, Paul, 249272. New York, NY: Roman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Horn, Christoph. 2015. “Das Bewusstsein, unter dem moralischen Gesetz zu stehen – Kants Freiheitsargument in GMS III.” [] In Kants Begründung von Freiheit und Moral in ‘Grundlegung III’: Neue Interpretationen, edited by Schönecker, Dieter, 137156. Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
Klemme, Heiner. 2010. “The Origin and Aim of Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason.” In Kant’s ‘Critique of Practical Reason’: A Critical Guide, edited by Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens, 1130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511770869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1989. “Morality as Freedom.” In Kant’s Practical Philosophy Reconsidered, edited by Yovel, Yirmiyahu, 2348. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 10.1007/978-94-017-2016-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996a. Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996b. Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 2009. Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552795.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd. 2010. “Die ‘consequente Denkungsart der speculativen Kritik’. Kants radikale Umgestaltung seiner Freiheitslehre im Jahre 1786 und die Folgen für die Kritische Philosophie als Ganze.” [] Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 58: 595628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd. 2012. “Was weiss ich vom Ich? Kants Lehre vom Faktum der reinen praktischen Vernunft, seine Neufassung der Paralogismen und die verborgenen Fortschritte der Kritischen Metaphysik im Jahre 1786.” [] In Sind wir Bürger zweier Welten? Freiheit und moralische Verantwortung im transzendentalen Idealismus, edited by Brandhorst, Mario, Hahmann, Andree and Ludwig, Bernd, 155194. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd. 2015. “‘Die Kritik der reinen Vernunft hat die Wirklichkeit der Freiheit nicht bewiesen, ja nicht einmal deren Möglichkeit’: Über die folgenreiche Fehlinterpretation eines Absatzes in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft.” [The Critique of Pure Reason has not proved the actuality of freedom, nor even its possibility.’ On the Following Misinterpretation of a Paragraph in the Critique of Pure Reason.] Kant-Studien 106: 398417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łuków, Paweł. 1993. “The Fact of Reason: Kant’s Passage to Ordinary Moral Knowledge.” Kant-Studien 84: 204221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael H. 1982. “Kant’s Rejection of the Argument of Groundwork III.” Kant-Studien 73: 169190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellin, Georg Samuel Albert. 1800. Encyclopädische Wörterbuch der Kritischen Philosophie [Encyclopedic Dictionary of Critical Philosophy]. Leipzig: Frommann.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Christian Friedrich. 1796–97. Ueber die sittliche natur und bestimmung des menschen: ein versuch zur erläuterung über I. Kant’s Kritik der praktischen vernunft []. Leipzig: J.G. Beigang.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1970. The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Neiman, Susan. 1994. The Unity of Reason: Rereading Kant. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora. 1989. Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paton, Herbert. 1947. The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Pistorius, Herman Andreas. 1786a. “Rezension der Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten.” [] In Materialien zu Kants Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (1975), edited by Bittner, Rüdiger and Cramer, Konrad. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Pistorius, Herman Andreas. 1786b. “Rezension von J. Schulzes Erläuterungen zur Kritik der reinen Vernunft.” [.] In Kants vergessener Rezensent. Die Kritik der theoretischen und praktischen Philosophie Kants in fünf frühen Rezensionen von Hermann Andreas Pistorius (2007), edited by Gesang, Bernward. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Puls, Heiko. 2011. “Freiheit als Unabhängigkeit von bloß subjektiv bestimmenden Ursachen – Kants Auflösung des Zirkelverdachts im dritten Abschnitt der Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. [] In Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 65: 534562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puls, Heiko. 2014. Quo errat demonstrator – warum es in der Grundlegung eine Faktum-These gibt. Drei Argumente gegen Dieter Schöneckers Interpretation.” [] In Kants Rechtfertigung des Sittengesetzes in Grundlegung III: Deduktion Oder Faktum?, edited by Puls, Heiko, 1532. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauscher, Frederick. 2009. “Freedom and Reason in Groundwork III.” In Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide, edited by Timmermann, Jens, 203223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511770760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauscher, Frederick. 2015. Naturalism and Realism in Kant’s Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316105252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 2000. In Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, edited by Herman, Barbara. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reath, Andrews. 2012. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” In The Oxford Handbook on the History of Ethics, edited by Crisp, Roger, 443464. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhold, Karl. 1786/87. “Briefe über die Kantische Philosophie.Der Teutsche Merkur 3: 99127.Google Scholar
Ross, William David. 1954. Kant’s Ethical Theory: A Commentary on the Grundlegung Zur Metaphysik Der Sitten. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, Joe. 2014. “Kant, Rational Psychology and Practical Reason.” Kant Yearbook 6: 115135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönecker, Dieter. 1999. Kant: Grundlegung III. Die Deduktion des kategorischen Imperativs [Kant: Groundwork III. The Deduction of the Categorical Imperative]. Freiburg/München: Karl Alber-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schönecker, Dieter. 2006. “How is a Categorical Imperative Possible?” In Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, edited by Horn, Christoph and Schönecker, Dieter, 301323. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schönecker, Dieter. 2013. “Kant’s Moral Intuitionism: The Fact of Reason and Moral Predispositions.” Kant Studies Online 1: 138.Google Scholar
Schönecker, Dieter. 2014. “Warum es in der Grundlegung keine Faktum-These gibt. Drei Argumente.” []” In Kants Rechtfertigung des Sittengesetzes in Grundlegung III: Deduktion Oder Faktum?, edited by Puls, Heiko, 115. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schönecker, Dieter, ed. 2015. Kants Begründung von Freiheit und Moral in ‘Grundlegung III’: Neue Interpretationen []. Münster: Mentis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stattler, Benedict. 1788. Anti-Kant, Bd. 1–2 [Anti-Kant, Vols. 1–2]. München: Lentner.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. 2012. Understanding Moral Obligation: Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. 2015. Kantian Ethics: Value, Agency, and Obligation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198722298.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sticker, Martin. 2015. “Educating the Common Agent: Kant on the Varieties of Moral Education.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 97: 358387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sussman, David. 2008. “From Deduction to Deed: Kant’s Grounding of the Moral Law.” Kantian Review 13: 5281. 10.1017/S1369415400001096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, Jens. 2007. Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, Jens. 2010. “Reversal or Retreat? Kant’s Deductions of Freedom and Morality.” In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide, edited by Timmermann, Jens and Reath, Andrews, 7389. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511770869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, Sergio. 2012. “The Idea of Freedom and Moral Cognition in Groundwork III.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84: 555589. 10.1111/phpr.2012.84.issue-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tittel, Gottlob August. 1786. Ueber Herrn Kant’s Moralreform [On Kant’s Reform of Morals]. Frankfurt: Pfähler.Google Scholar
Velleman, David. 1989. Practical Reflection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Velleman, David. 2009. How We Get Along. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511808296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, Owen. 2014. “Rethinking Kant’s Fact of Reason.” Philosophers’ Imprint 32: 121.Google Scholar
Ware, Owen. 2016. “Skepticism in Kant’s Groundwork.” European Journal of Philosophy. 24: 375396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Terence Charles. 1968. The Concept of the Categorical Imperative: A Study of the Place of the Categorical Imperative in Kant’s Ethical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 1992. Praktische Vernunft: Handlungstheorie und Moralbegründung bei Kant [Practical Reason: Action Theory and Moral Grounding in Kant]. Weimar: Metzler. 10.1007/978-3-476-05577-4Google Scholar
Wolff, Michael. 2009. “Warum das Faktum der Vernunft ein Faktum ist. Auflösung einiger Verständnisschwierigkeiten in Kants Grundlegung der Moral.” [] Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 57: 511549.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 2011. “Preface and Introduction (3–16).” In Immanuel Kant: Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, edited by Höffe, Otfried, 2135. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1524/9783050056180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Kant’s deductions of morality and freedom
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Kant’s deductions of morality and freedom
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Kant’s deductions of morality and freedom
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *