Book contents
- Kant’s Tribunal of Reason
- Kant’s Tribunal of Reason
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 The Critique of Pure Reason as the Establishment of Reason’s Lawful Condition
- Chapter 2 The Normativity of Law
- Chapter 3 The Transcendental Deduction of the Categories and the Tradition of Legal Deductions
- Chapter 4 The Question of Fact and the Question of Law in Judicial Imputation and in the Transcendental Deduction of the Categories
- Chapter 5 The Tribunal of Reason
- Chapter 6 Moral Conscience as the Practical Inner Tribunal
- Chapter 7 Distinguishing between Rightful Claims and Groundless Pretensions
- Chapter 8 Epistemic Authority as both Individual and Collectively Shared
- Chapter 9 Systematicity and Philosophy as the Legislation of Reason
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
Chapter 6 - Moral Conscience as the Practical Inner Tribunal
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2020
- Kant’s Tribunal of Reason
- Kant’s Tribunal of Reason
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 The Critique of Pure Reason as the Establishment of Reason’s Lawful Condition
- Chapter 2 The Normativity of Law
- Chapter 3 The Transcendental Deduction of the Categories and the Tradition of Legal Deductions
- Chapter 4 The Question of Fact and the Question of Law in Judicial Imputation and in the Transcendental Deduction of the Categories
- Chapter 5 The Tribunal of Reason
- Chapter 6 Moral Conscience as the Practical Inner Tribunal
- Chapter 7 Distinguishing between Rightful Claims and Groundless Pretensions
- Chapter 8 Epistemic Authority as both Individual and Collectively Shared
- Chapter 9 Systematicity and Philosophy as the Legislation of Reason
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
This chapter compares the portrayal of the critique as an inner tribunal to the traditional image of moral conscience as an inner tribunal. The main argument is that moral conscience is a model of the way in which a reflexive investigation can be both internal and objective. In support of this argument, Møller considers Kant’s claim made in the 1790s that an erring conscience is an absurdity. She argues that this claim should be understood in light of Kant’s account of moral conscience as a second-order capacity, which is not merely judicial but also legislative and executive. This analysis shows that Kant’s mature account of moral conscience is not a departure from but rather a development of the inner tribunal image. The parallel between the two inner tribunals shows that an internal investigation can reach a valid outcome if this outcome depends on the valid use of impersonal cognitive faculties.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Kant's Tribunal of ReasonLegal Metaphor and Normativity in the <I>Critique of Pure Reason</I>, pp. 96 - 112Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020