Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:39:00.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do we Always Act on Maxims?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2017

Sven Nyholm
Sven Nyholm*
Affiliation:
Eindhoven University of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is commonly thought that on Kant’s view of action, ‘everyone always acts on maxims’. Call this the ‘descriptive reading’. This reading faces two important problems. First, the idea that people always act on maxims offends against common sense: it clashes with our ordinary ideas about human agency. Second, there are various passages in which Kant says that it is ‘rare’ and ‘admirable’ to firmly adhere to a set of basic principles that we adopt for ourselves. This article offers an alternative: the ‘normative reading’. On this reading, it is a normative ideal to adopt and act on maxims: it is one of the things we would do if our reason were fully in control of our decision-making.

Keywords

maximsbasic principlesactionagencycharacternormativity
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 233 - 255
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2017 

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

Albrecht, Michael (1994) ‘Kants Maximenethik und ihre Begründung’. Kant-Studien, 85, 129–146.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. (1990) Kant’s Theory of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl (2005) Interpreting Kant’s Critiques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bittner, Rüdiger (1974) ‘Maximen’. In G. Funke (ed.), Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Berlin: de Gruyter), 1974 pp. 485–498.Google Scholar
Cicero, Marcus Tullius (2000) On Duties, Trans. M. T. Griffin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, Michael (1999) ‘Implementation Intentions’. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressis, Robert (2010a) ‘Recent Work on Kantian Maxims I: Established Approaches’. Philosophy Compass, 5, 216–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressis, Robert (2010b) ‘Recent Work on Kantian Maxims II: New Approaches’. Philosophy Compass, 5, 228–239.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2000) Kant on Freedom, Law and Happiness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried (1977) ‘Kants kategorischer Imperativ als Kriterium des Sittlichen’. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 31, 354–384.Google Scholar
Johnson, Robert (2008) ‘Kant’s Moral Philosophy’. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer 2014 edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/kant-moral.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (1996) The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (2009) Self-Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Richard (2009) Kant’s Theory of Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nyholm, Sven (2015a) ‘Kant’s Universal Law Formula Revisited’. Metaphilosophy, 46, 280–299.Google Scholar
Nyholm, Sven (2015b) Revisiting Kant’s Universal Law and Humanity Formulas. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyholm, Sven ( forthcoming) ‘On Kant’s Idea of Humanity as an End in itself’. European Journal of Philosophy, DOI: 10.1111/ejop.12057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, Onora (1989) Constructions of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek (2011) On What Matters, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip (2015) The Robust Demands of the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raedler, Sebastian (2015) Kant and the Interests of Reason. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schönecker, Dieter, and Wood, Allen (2008) Kants ‘Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten’: Ein einführender Kommentar. Stuttgart: Uni-Taschenbücher.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens (2000) ‘Kant’s Puzzling Ethics of Maxims’. Harvard Review of Philosophy, 8, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilde, Oscar (2006) The Picture of Dorian Gray. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen (2008) Kantian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar