Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:01:42.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aristotle, Kant and Rawls on Moral Motivation in a Just Society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Steven M. DeLue
Steven M. DeLue*
Affiliation:
University of North Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

John Rawls considers his Theory of Justice to be in the Kantian tradition. Generally there seems to be agreement among Rawls' critics that at least with respect to the procedural formulation of the principles of justice, it is difficult to call Rawls' position Kantian. In this article I will argue that Rawls' Kantianism is best understood as providing a motive source for acting upon known just standards of conduct. In this regard Rawls can be read as synthesizing aspects of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Kant's moral reasoning to provide the rationale to explain why an individual who knows what is morally correct conduct in a given situation, makes such knowledge the source of his action. Demonstrating the Aristotelean roots of Rawls' Kantianism with respect to the problem of motivation for just conduct helps one understand how Kant's moral theory can be viewed in Rawls' words not as a “morality of austere command but … [as] … an ethic of mutual respect and self esteem” (1971, p. 251). Secondly, this view of Kant provides the basis for understanding the anti-corporatist aspect of Rawls' political theory that my reading of Rawls makes necessary.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 385 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1980

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

Aristotle, (1968a). Nicomachean Ethics and Politics. In McKeon, Richard (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auxter, Thomas (1979). “The Unimportance of Kant's Highest Good.” Journal of History and Philosophy 17:122–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Allan (1975). “Justice: John Rawls Vs. The Tradition of Political Philosophy,” American Political Science Review 69: 648–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, John (1976). “Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship.” Review of Metaphysics 30: 619–48.Google Scholar
Darwall, Stephen (1976). “A Defense of the Kantian Interpretation.” Ethics 86:164–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1979). “Three Concepts of Liberalism: A Conversation with Ronald Dworkin.” The New Republic 180:41–49.Google Scholar
Galston, William A. (1975). Kant and the Problem of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garson, G. David (1971). Power and Politics in the United States. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Hardie, W. F. (1968). Aristotle's Ethical Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Oliver A. (1971). “The Kantian Interpretation.” Ethics 85: 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1966). Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Muller, F. Max. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1948). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Paton, H. J.. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1963). Lectures on Ethics. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1970). “Contest of Faculties.” In Reiss, Hans (ed.), Kant's Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, Andrew (1974). “Rawls' Kantianism.” Social Theory and Practice 3:47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, S. M. (1962). “Introduction to Robert Michels.” Political Parties. Translated by Eden, and Paul, Cedar. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. (1969). The End of Liberalism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Mulgan, R. G. (1977). Aristotle's Political Theory: An Introduction for Students on Political Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Oakeshott, Michael (1962). “The Political Economy of Freedom.” In Rationalism and Politics. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1975). “Fairness to Goodness.” Philosophical Review 84: 536–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John (1977). “The Basic Structure as Subject.” American Philosophical Quarterly 14:159–65.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1971). Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, Hans (1970). Kant's Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Riley, Patrick (1973). “On Kant as the Most Adequate of the Social Contract Theorists.” Political Theory 1:450–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Roger J. (1974). “The Kantian Critique of Aristotle's Moral Philosophy: An Appraisal.” Review of Metaphysics 28: 24–53.Google Scholar
Truman, D. B. (1951). The Governmental Process. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Winthrop, Delba (1978). “Aristotle and Theories of Justice.” American Political Science Review 72: 1201–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Robert (1973). The Anatomy of Reason. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.