Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T10:00:24.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Schopenhauer, Kant and Compassion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2012

Paul Guyer*
Affiliation:
Brown University

Abstract

Schopenhauer presents his moral philosophy as diametrically opposed to that of Kant: for him, pure practical reason is an illusion and morality can arise only from the feeling of compassion, while for Kant it cannot be based on such a feeling and can be based only on pure practical reason. But the difference is not as great as Schopenhauer makes it seem, because for him compassion is supposed to arise from metaphysical insight into the unity of all being, thus from pure if theoretical reason, while for Kant pure practical reason works only by effecting a feeling of respect (in the ‘Critical’ works) or by cultivating, i.e. affecting, natural dispositions to moral feeling (in the ‘post-Critical’ works). I argue that Kant's is the more realistic theory on this point.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2012

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

Anscombe, Elizabeth (1958) ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’. Philosophy, 33, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, David E. (1999) ‘Schopenhauer's Narrower Sense of Morality’. In Janaway (1999: 252–92).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1987) Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1995/2000)‘The Possibility of the Categorical Imperative’. Philosophical Review, 353385. Repr. in Paul Guyer, Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 172–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2007) ‘Naturalistic and Transcendental Moments in Kant's Moral Philosophy’. Inquiry, 50, 444464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2010) ‘Moral Feelings in the Metaphysics of Morals. In Lara Denis (ed.), Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 130151.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (forthcoming) ‘A Passion for Reason’ (American Philosophical Association Eastern Division 2011 Presidential Address). Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara (1981/1993) ‘On the Value of Acting from the Motive of Duty’. Philosophical Review, 90, 359382. Repr. in Barbara Herman, The Practice of Moral Judgment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janaway, Christopher (ed.) (1999) The Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996) Practical Philosophy, ed. and trans. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1997) Lectures on Ethics, ed. Peter Heath and J. B. Schneewind, trans. Peter Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, Onora (1975) Acting on Principle: An Essay on Kantian Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Paton, H.J. (1936) Kant's Metaphysic of Experience, vol. 1. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Paton, H.J. (1947) The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral Philosophy. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur (2009) The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics, trans. and ed. Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur (2010) The World as Will and Representation, vol. 1, trans. Judith Norman, Alistair Welchman and Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Norman Kemp (1923) A Commentary to Kant's ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, rev. edn. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. (1999) Kant's Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar