Kant 10-21,10-28[1]

Kant 10-21,10-28[1] - Core Course MR 22 Justice Katharina...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Core Course MR 22: Justice Katharina Held Tuesday, October 21, 2003 Kant: GMM Tuesday, October 28, 2003 I Preface - What is Kant‘s aim in the Grounding? - Intention of the grounding: seeking out and establishing the supreme principle of morality (392) purifying the morals of everything empirical - Why does Kant disdain a moral law based in our observation of human psychology? moral law cannot rest on inclinations, human nature everything empirical/psychological can only povide practical rules, not moral laws, since empirical facts are valid only accidental moral laws have to be valid in general and for every rational being, under all circumstances - Inhowfar differs this from the utilitarian approach? - Laws of moral philosophy are those according to which everything ought to happen (388) - Morally valid law (valid as a ground of obligation) must carry with it absolute necessity (398) „For in the case of what is to be morally good, that it conforms to the moral law is not enough; it must also be done for the sake of the moral law“ a moral valid action has to be not only according to duty, but from duty - from ordinary rational knowledge to the philosophical knowledge of morality II First Section Terms: practical law = objective principle Maxim = subjective principle of acting Command (of reason) = objective principle insofar as it necessitates the reason imperative = formula of the command content of imperative = principle of duty - How does Kant open the first section? „There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will“ (393) - How does he go on to define the goodness of the will? „A good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of ist fitness to attain some proposed end; ist good only through ist willing, i.e. it is good in itself“. (394) How does this definition compare to the utilitarian approch, or even the libertarian?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Utilitarianism and Libertarianism are consequentialist theories, while Kants approach is a categorical one not the fruitfulness or usefulness of the will or of an action defines the moral worth of an action/ or the will „absolute value of a mere will“ (394) - Compare this to the consequentialist structure of utilitarianism: Mill, Utilitarianism, p18: „He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, wether his motive be duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble“ what would Kant object to this statement? -
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course MORAL REAS 22 taught by Professor Sandel during the Fall '05 term at Harvard.

Page1 / 6

Kant 10-21,10-28[1] - Core Course MR 22 Justice Katharina...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online