Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:02:15.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Obligatory Actions, Obligatory Maxims

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2020

Samuel Kahn
Samuel Kahn*
Affiliation:
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I confront Parfit’s Mixed Maxims Objection. I argue that recent attempts to respond to this objection fail, and I argue that their failure is compounded by the failure of recent attempts to show how the Formula of Universal Law can be used to demarcate the category of obligatory maxims. I then set out my own response to the objection, drawing on remarks from Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals for inspiration and developing a novel account of how the Formula of Universal Law can be employed to determine the deontic status of action tokens, action types and maxims.

Keywords

Kant’s ethicsKantian ethicsParfitMixed Maxims ObjectionOn What MattersFormula of Universal Lawpositive dutygeneral dutyobligationaction description problem
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 1 - 25
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Kantian Review

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

Anscombe, Elizabeth (1957) Intention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biss, Mavis (2018) ‘Positive Morality and the Realization of Freedom in Kant’s Moral Philosophy’. European Journal of Philosophy, 27, 610–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formosa, Paul, and Sticker, Martin (2018) ‘Kant and the Demandingness of the Virtue of Beneficence’. European Journal of Philosophy, 27, 625–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyenhagen, Fabian (2012) ‘The Empty Formalism Objection Revisited’. In Brooks, Thom (ed.), Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell), 43–72.Google Scholar
Gressis, Robert (2010a) ‘Recent Work on Kantian Maxims I’. Philosophy Compass, 5(3), 216–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressis, Robert (2010b) ‘Recent Work on Kantian Maxims II’. Philosophy Compass, 5(3), 228–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2006) Kant. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2007) Kant’s ‘Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals’: A Reader’s Guide. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Harrison, Jonathan (1957) ‘Kant’s Examples of the First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative’. Philosophical Quarterly, 7(26), 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, Barbara (1993) The Practice of Moral Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara (2007) Moral Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hernandez, Jill (2010) ‘Impermissibility and Kantian Moral Worth’. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 13, 403–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Samuel (2019) Kant, Ought Implies Can, the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, and Happiness. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine (1996) Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyholm, Sven (2015) “Kant’s Formula of Universal Law Revisited’. Metaphilosophy, 46(2), 280–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, Onora (2013) Acting on Principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek (2011) On What Matters Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pogge, Thomas (2004) ‘Parfit on What’s Wrong’. Harvard Review of Philosophy, 12(1), 52–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John (2000) Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter (1972) ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 229–43.Google Scholar
Stratton-Lake, Philip (2000) Kant, Duty, and Moral Worth. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens (2000) ‘Kant’s Puzzling Ethics of Maxims’. Harvard Review of Philosophy, 8, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar