Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:52:43.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Autonomy and the Idea of Freedom: Some Reflections on Groundwork III

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2019

Andrews Reath
Andrews Reath*
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores a set of questions about the ‘idea of freedom’ that Kant introduces in the fourth paragraph of Groundwork III. I develop a reading that supports treating it as a normative notion and brings out its normative content in some detail. I argue that we should understand the idea as follows: that it is a general feature of reasoning and judgement that it understands itself to be a correct or sound application of the normative standards of the relevant domain of cognition, not influenced by irrelevant or external factors. Reasoning and judgement are thus normatively committed to these standards of correctness. A second and related concern is to explore connections between the idea of freedom and Kant’s conception of autonomy and to identify different points at which autonomy plays a role in the argument of Groundwork III. In the final section, I mine the idea of freedom for a set of normative commitments specific to rational agency that play a foundational role in Kant’s moral conception.

Keywords

Kantautonomyfreedomauthority of morality
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 223 - 248
Copyright
© Kantian Review, 2019 

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, H. E. (2011) Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. E. (2012). Essays on Kant. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cureton, A. (2013) ‘From Self-Respect to Respect for Others’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94, 166–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, S. (2009) The Form of Practical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, S. (2010) ‘Reason, Desire and the Will’. In Denis, L. (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide (New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 28–50.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (1998) ‘The Deduction of the Moral Law: The Reasons for the Obscurity of the Final Section of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals ’. Trans. P. Guyer. In Guyer, P. (ed.), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield), pp. 303–41. (First publ. in Schwann, Alexander (ed.), Denken im Schatten des Nihilismus. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975.)Google Scholar
Herman, B. (1993) The Practice of Moral Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, B. (2007) Moral Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, T. E. Jr. (1992) Dignity and Practical Reason. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1996a) The Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. and ed. Gregor, M.. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1996b) Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Gregor, M.. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. and ed. Guyer, P. and Wood, A.. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (2011) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. and ed. Gregor, M. and Timmermann, J.. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2015) Critique of Practical Reason (revised edition). Trans. M. Gregor, ed. Reath, Andrews. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (1987) ‘Kant on the Spontaneity of Mind’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17.2, 449–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quarfood, M. (2006) ‘The Circle and the Two Standpoints (GMS III, 3)’. In Horn, C. and Schönecker, D. (eds), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Berlin: de Gruyter), pp. 285–300.Google Scholar
Reath, A. (2006) Agency and Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reath, A. (2013) ‘Kant’s Conception of Autonomy of the Will.’ In Sensen, O. (ed.), Kant on Moral Autonomy (New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 32–52.Google Scholar
Reath, A. (2015) ‘Did Kant Hold that Rational Volition is sub Ratione Boni?’. In Timmons, M. and Johnson, R. (eds), Reason, Value and Respect: Kantian Themes from the Philosophy of Thomas E. Hill, Jr. (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 232–55.Google Scholar
Reath, A. (2019) ‘What Emerged: Autonomy and Heteronomy in the Groundwork and Second Critique ’. In Bacin, S. and Sensen, O. (eds), The Emergence of Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Philosophy (New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 176–95.Google Scholar
Schönecker, D. (2006) ‘How is a Categorical Imperative Possible? Kant’s Deduction of the Categorical Imperative’. In Horn, C. and Schönecker, D. (eds), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Berlin: de Gruyter), pp. 301–24.Google Scholar
Sussman, D. (2008) ‘From Deduction to Deed: Kant’s Grounding of the Moral Law’. Kantian Review, 13(1), 52–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar