Hostname: page-component-76dd75c94c-sgvz2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T08:30:31.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moral Deliberation and Desire Development: Herman on Alienation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Donald Wilson
Donald Wilson*
Affiliation:
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS66506, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In chapter nine of The Practice of Moral Judgment (1996b) and her later article ‘Making Room for Character’ (1996a), Barbara Herman offers a distinctive and interesting response to a set of concerns involving the idea that Kantian ethics objectionably alienates us from personal relationships and commitments. Broadly speaking, these concerns take one of two general forms: some accounts emphasize the practical marginalization of personal interests and relationships, arguing that the Kantian's open-ended commitment to impartial overriding moral requirements threatens to leave the agent little or no practical room for the sorts of relationships and commitments that we think of as important in (or essential to) a recognizably human life. A related but more formal variant emphasizes the internal perspective of the agent and the structure rather than the scope of moral commitment. On this account, the problem is said to lie in the requirement that we are only to act on reasons justifiable from an impersonal universalizing point of view and the way in which this requirement precludes the kind of partial and personal reasons for action said to be essential to individual agency and a sense of self.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 283 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009

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

Baron, M. 1984. ‘The Alleged Moral Repugnance of Acting From Duty.’ The Journal of Philosophy 81 (1984) 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, B. 1996a. ‘Making Room for Character.’ In Aristotle, Kant, and the Stoics: Rethinking Happiness and Duty, Engstrom, S. and Whiting, J. eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Moral Literacy, Herman 2007.Google Scholar
Herman, B. 1996b. The Practice of Moral Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, B. 2002. The Scope of Moral Requirement. Philosophy & Public Affairs 30 (2002) 227–56. Reprinted in Moral Literacy, Herman 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, B. 2007. Moral Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1974. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Trans. M. J. Gregor. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. 1991. The Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Gregor, Mary J.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, S. 1994. The Rejection of Consequentialism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, P. 1988. ‘Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality.’ In Consequentialism & Its Critics, Scheffler, S. ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stocker, M. 1976. ‘The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories.’ The Journal of Philosophy 73 (1976) 453–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velleman, J.D. 1999. ‘Love as Moral Emotion.’ Ethics 109 (1999) 338–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. 1981. Moral Luck. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. 2007. ‘Middle Theory, Inner Freedom, & Moral Health,’ History of Philosophy Quarterly 24 (2007) 393–413.Google Scholar
Wolf, S. 1982. ‘Moral Saints,’ The Journal of Philosophy 79 (1982) 419–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar