Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:05:55.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant on the Independence of the Moral Law from Sensibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2015

Laura Papish
Laura Papish*
Affiliation:
George Washington University
*
Email: LauraPapish@gwu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are several senses in which Kant’s moral law is independent of sensibility. This paper is devoted mainly to Kant’s account of ‘physical conditions independence’, or the idea that the moral law can compel us to pursue ends that might be impossible to realize empirically. Since this idea has received little attention from commentators, this paper addresses both its textual basis in Kant’s writings and its overall philosophical viability.

Keywords

KantethicsendsconstructivismconstitutivismKorsgaard
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 77 - 98
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2015 

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 (1990) Kant’s Theory of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry (2001) Kant’s Theory of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxley, Anne Margaret (2005) ‘The Practical Significance of Taste in Kant’s “Critique of Judgment”: Love of Natural Beauty as a Mark of Moral Character’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63/1, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Lewis White (1960) A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grenberg, Jeanine (2001) ‘Feeling, Desire and Interest in Kant’s Theory of Action’. Kant-Studien, 92/2, 153–179.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1979) Kant and the Claims of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2000) Kant on Freedom, Happiness, and Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1975) Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara (2007) Moral Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996a) Critique of Practical Reason. In Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy, ed. and trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996b) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. In Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy, ed. and trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996c) Metaphysics of Morals from Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy, ed. and trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2000) Critique of the Power of Judgment, ed. Paul Guyer, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine (1989) ‘Morality as Freedom’. In Yirmiyahu Yovel (ed.), Kant’s Practical Philosophy Reconsidered: Papers Presented at the Seventh Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp. 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine (2009) Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavin, Douglas (2004) ‘Practical Reason and the Possibility of Error’. Ethics, 114/3, 424–457.Google Scholar
Murdoch, Iris (2001) The Sovereignty of Good. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Potter, Nelson (1998) ‘Kant on Ends that are at the Same Time Duties’. In Ruth Chadwick (ed.), Immanuel Kant: Critical Assessments (London: Routledge), pp. 100–115.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (2000) Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert (2004) ‘Does “Ought” Imply “Can”? And Did Kant Think it Does?’. Utilitas, 16, 42–61.Google Scholar