Kant ’ s Defense of Human Moral
نویسنده
چکیده
The determination of individual moral status is a central factor in the ethical evaluation of controversial practices such as elective abortion, human embryo-destructive research, and the care of severely disabled and those in persistent vegetative states. A comprehensive review of recent work on Kant’s conception of moral status reveals the need for a careful examination of the content of Kant’s biological and psychological theories and their possible relation to his conclusions about moral status. Examination of Kant’s “naturalistic” biological and psychological theories reveals his commitment to the view that each human being, in virtue of being generated as a member of the human species, possesses a certain set of “predispositions” from the point of its procreation and throughout its life. Kant’s doctrine of radical evil and his practical-metaphysical analysis of the origins of freedom reveal his commitment to a universally possessed practical predisposition (“personality”) that is the basis of moral status. These disparate and oft-forgotten elements of Kant’s “modest system,” taken together, provide a coherent “apology” for Kant’s inclusive claim that all human beings possess moral status, a defense more principled than the influential pragmatic decision interpretation suggests. The proposed interpretation clarifies a number of Kant’s central commitments in the natural sciences and in ethical theory and sheds new light on one important moment in the history of philosophical reflection on questions of moral status. (225 words)
منابع مشابه
Why Does Kant Think That Moral Requirements Are Categorical Imperatives?
In this paper I put forth three criticisms against McDowell account of the idea that moral requirements are categorical imperatives. I argue that McDowell’s account fails as a defense of Kant’s doctrine for at least three reasons. First, McDowell claims that agents can appeal to experience in order to formulate and recognize categorical imperatives. However, Kant strongly disagrees with this cl...
متن کاملKant and Demystification of Ethics and Religion
Kant's demystification is meant to put away any metaphysical and revealed elements from ethics and religion. Kant, fulfilling this, first argues that metaphysical questions of reason, from theoretical aspect, have no certain answers. In practical reason, he establishes his moral foundations, based on own human being without any referring to metaphysical bases. In fact, Kant places human being a...
متن کاملCritical Virtue Ethics
Since the publication of Anscombe’s famous paper “Modern Moral Philosophy” (1958), virtue ethics has become a matter of discussion among scholars. At least four charges have been raised against virtue ethics, one of which is the charge of promoting undue enthusiasm regarding the moral fitness of human beings. This article explores the limits of virtue ethics with regard to the frailty of human ...
متن کاملKant’s Theory of Value: On Allen Wood’s Kant’s Ethical Thought*
Many students take away a familiar and rather cartoonish image from studying Kant in college – that of an austere moralist who would have it that a righteous human life consists exclusively in an obligation to a supreme moral law (something which seems to involve arcane ‘universalizability tests’ for ‘maxims’ of action), that the claims of such obedience are unconditional, or trump, override, a...
متن کامل