Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:51:42.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On a Presumed Omission in Kant's Derivation of the Categorical Imperative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2011

Robert Greenberg
Robert Greenberg
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new book by Stephen Engstrom repeats a criticism of Bruce Aune's of Kant's derivation of the universalizability formula of the categorical imperative. The criticism is that Kant omitted at least one substantive premise in the derivation of the formula: ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.’ The grounds for the formula that are given in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, however, are said to support only a weaker requirement, namely, that a maxim conform to a universal law. Hence, Kant omits at least one necessary substantive premise of the derivation. This paper attempts to show that nothing substantive is omitted from the argument. It only needs two principles of inference that it is assumed add nothing substantive to the premises.

Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , 28 September 2011 , pp. 449 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2011

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 and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry E. (1996) ‘On a Presumed Gap in the Derivation of the Categorical Imperative’. In Henry E. Allison, Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant's Theoretical and Practical Philosophy (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aune, Bruce (1979) Kant's Theory of Morals. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White (1960) A Commentary on Kant's ‘Critique of Practical Reason’. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen (2009) The Form of Practical Knowledge: A Study of the Categorical Imperative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Thomas E. (1993) ‘Kant's Argument for the Rationality of Moral Conduct’. In Thomas E. Hill, Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant's Moral Theory (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1902/1785) Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals). In Kant's gesammelte Schriften Ed. Deutschen (formerly Königlich Preussischen) Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter [and predecessors].Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1997/1785) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, tr. Mary Gregor. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. (1992) Hegel's Ethical Thought. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. (1999) Kant's Ethical Thought. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar