Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:43:04.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A gradual reformation: empirical character and causal powers in Kant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Jonas Jervell Indregard
Jonas Jervell Indregard*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, P. R. China
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Kant each person has an empirical character, which is ultimately grounded in one’s free choice. The popular Causal Laws interpretation of empirical character holds that it consists of the causal laws governing our psychology. I argue that this reading has difficulties explaining moral change, the ‘gradual reformation’ of our empirical character: Causal laws cannot change and hence cannot be gradually reformed. I propose an alternative Causal Powers interpretation of empirical character, where our empirical character consists of our mind’s causal powers. The resulting picture of empirical character allows for moral change and Kantian weakness of will.

Keywords

Causal lawsfreedomintelligible charactermoral cultivationpowers of the mindvirtueweakness of will
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 48 , Issue 5 , 2018 , pp. 662 - 683
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. 2018

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: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139172295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Marcia. 1993. “Freedom, Frailty, and Impurity.” Inquiry 36(4): 431–441. doi: 10.1080/00201749308602333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxley, Anne Margaret. 2010. Kant’s Theory of Virtue: The Value of Autocracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511779466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biss, Mavis. 2015. “Kantian Moral Striving.” Kantian Review 20(1): 1–23. doi: 10.1017/S1369415414000260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blöser, Claudia. 2014. Zurechnung bei Kant: Zum Zusammenhang von Person und Handlung in Kants praktischer Philosophie [Imputation in Kant: On the Connection between Person and Action in Kant's Practical Philosophy]. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadie, Alexander, and Pybus, Elizabeth M.. 1982. “Kant and Weakness of Will.” Kant-studien 73(4): 406–412. doi: 10.1515/kant.1982.73.1-4.406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cureton, Adam. 2016. “Kant on Cultivating a Good and Stable Will.” In Questions of Character, edited by Fileva, Iskra, 63–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199357703.003.0004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Brian. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Brian. 2013. “The Power of Agency.” In Powers and Capacities in Philosophy: The New Aristotelianism, edited by Groff, Ruth and Greco, John, 186–206. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, A. C. 1924. Kant’s Treatment of Causality. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2013. Kant’s Construction of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139014083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frierson, Patrick. 2010. “Two Standpoints and the Problem of Moral Anthropology.” In Kant’s Moral Metaphysics, edited byBruxvoort Lipscomb, Benjamin J. and Krueger, James, 83–110. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frierson, Patrick. 2013. What Is the Human Being? New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frierson, Patrick. 2014. Kant’s Empirical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139507035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fugate, Courtney. 2014. The Teleology of Reason. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110306484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouaux, Charles. 1972. “Kant's View on the Nature of Empirical Psychology.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 8(2): 237–42. doi: 10.1002/1520-6696(197204)8:2<237::AID-JHBS2300080211>3.0.CO;2-W.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groff, Ruth. 2016. “Sublating the Free Will Problematic: Powers, Agency, and Causal Determination.” Synthese. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1124-7.Google Scholar
Hanna, Robert. 2009. “Freedom, Teleology, and Rational Causation.” Kant Yearbook 1: 99–142. doi: 10.1515/9783110196672.99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, Robert, and Moore, Adrian W.. 2007. “Reason, Freedom, and Kant: An Exchange.” Kantian Review 12(1): 113–133. doi: 10.1017/S1369415400000832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, Boris. 2011. “Kants Modell kausaler Verhältnisse: Zu Watkins’ Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality.” [Kant’s Model of Causal Relations: On Watkins’ Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality.] Kant-studien 102(3): 367–384. doi: 10.1515/kant.2011.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Thomas E. 2012. Virtue, Rules, and Justice: Kantian Aspirations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199692002.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquette, Dale. 2005. The Philosophy of Schopenhauer. Chesham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Johnson, Robert N. 1998. “Weakness Incorporated.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 15(3): 349–367.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1900–. Kants gesammelte Schriften [Kant’s Collected Writings]. Edited by the Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1992–. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Edited by Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Halla. 2015. Kant and the Foundations of Morality. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Kohl, Markus. 2015. “Kant and ‘Ought Implies Can’.” Philosophical Quarterly 65(261): 690–710. doi: 10.1093/pq/pqv044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreines, James. 2017. “Kant on the Laws of Nature: Restrictive Inflationism and Its Philosophical Advantages.” The Monist 100(3): 326–341. doi: 10.1093/monist/onx013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2017. “Grounds, Modality, and Nomic Necessity in the Critical Kant.” In Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Breitenbach, Angela and Massimi, Michela, 150–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316389645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Richard. 2008. “Kant’s Incorporation Requirement: Freedom and Character in the Empirical World.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38(3): 425–451. doi: 10.1353/cjp.0.0025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Richard. 2009. Kant’s Theory of Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567720.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messina, James. 2017. “Kant’s Necessitation Account of Laws and the Nature of Natures.” In Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Breitenbach, Angela and Massimi, Michela, 131–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316389645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molnar, George. 2003. Powers: A Study in Metaphysics. Edited by Mumford, Stephen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Munzel, G. Felicitas. 1999. Kant’s Conception of Moral Character. The “Critical” Link of Morality, Anthropology, and Reflective Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nayak, Abhaya C., and Sotnak, Eric. 1995. “Kant on the Impossibility of the ‘Soft Sciences’.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55(1): 133–151. doi: 10.2307/2108312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, Walter. 2009. Causation and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570430.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papish, Laura. 2007. “The Cultivation of Sensibility in Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Kantian Review 12(2): 128–146. doi: 10.1017/S1369415400000935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasternack, Lawrence. 1999. “Can Self-Deception Explain Akrasia in Kant’s Theory of Moral Agency?” Southwest Philosophy Review 15(1): 87–97. doi: 10.5840/swphilreview199915124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, Lydia. 2017. “Kantian Essentialism in the Metaphysical Foundations.” The Monist 100(3): 342–356. doi: 10.1093/monist/onx014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reath, Andrews. 2006. “Kant’s Critical Account of Freedom.” In A Companion to Kant, edited by Bird, Graham, 275–290. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470996287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas, and Simon, Herbert A.. 1966. “Cause and Counterfactual.” Philosophy of Science 33(4): 323–340. doi: 10.1086/288105.Google Scholar
Rosefeldt, Tobias. 2012. “Kants Kompatibilismus.” In Sind wir Bürger zweier Welten?: Freiheit und moralische Verantwortung im transzendentalen Idealismus, edited by Brandhorst, Mario, Hahmann, Andree and Ludwig, Bernd, 77–110. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Jean P. 1989. “The Development of Character in Kantian Moral Theory.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 27(2): 247–265. doi: 10.1353/hph.1989.0023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur. (1839) 1999. Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will. Edited by Zöller, Günter and translated by Payne, E. F. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Surprenant, Chris. 2014. Kant and the Cultivation of Virtue. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilhauer, Benjamin. 2004. “Can We Interpret Kant as a Compatibilist About Determinism and Moral Responsibility?” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 12(4): 719–730. doi: 10.1080/0960878042000279341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilhauer, Benjamin. 2010. “The Scope of Responsibility in Kant’s Theory of Free Will.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18(1): 45–71. doi: 10.1080/09608780903339202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Ralph C. S. 1978. Kant. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Warren, Daniel. 2001. Reality and Impenetrability in Kant’s Philosophy of Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric. 2005. Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wehofsits, Anna. 2016. Anthropologie und Moral. Affekte, Leidenschaften und Mitgefühl in Kants Ethik [Anthropology and Morality. Affects, Passions, and Sympathy in Kant’s Ethics]. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110456462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511584497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 1984. “Kant’s Compatibilism.” In Self and Nature in Kant’s Philosophy, edited by Wood, Allen W., 73–101. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wuerth, Julian. 2014. Kant on Mind, Action, and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199587629.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar