Obituary Ingeborg Maus (1937-2024).

There is an interpretative puzzle at the centre of Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. The text presents the single principle of morality (G, 4: 392), but instead of providing a definitive statement of the principle, we find a three-step sequence of formulas. The puzzle concerns the formula relation: given the contrast between the moral law’s individuality and the plurality of formulas, how do the formulas relate to each other and the moral law? This paper takes the first step towards a new account by focusing on G, 4: 436, a passage in which Kant makes claims about the matter and form of the moral law. By understanding the hylomorphism entailed by these claims, it is possible to achieve new perspectives on common questions about Kant’s ethics, in particular, the role of the formulas in deriving or explaining duties and how the formulas are used in the argument of Groundwork II and its transition from popular moral philosophy to metaphysics of morals.

Despite Rousseau’s acknowledged influence on Kant, the moral value of compassion (or pity) is regarded as a major difference between their theories of morality. Pity plays a fundamental role in Rousseau’s theory of moral relations, whereas Kant appears suspicious of compassion. I argue that Kant nevertheless accords compassion a significant moral value, not only because it provides an appropriate supplementary incentive when the incentive of duty is not sufficient to motivate action but also because of the role it plays in attuning individuals to the moral status of others. Rousseau’s account of pity in Emile helps to explain how compassion can play this role.

In a well-known essay, Thomas Pogge argues that Kant’s political philosophy is not comprehensive in Rawls’ sense, since it is independent of his moral philosophy. However, Pogge understands Kant’s comprehensive liberalism as the view that his moral philosophy entails his political philosophy. I question whether this is the best way to understand comprehensive liberalism, in Kant or in general. I argue that Kant’s comprehensive moral philosophy is not an independent argument for the moral truth of liberal ideals, but a liberal way of justifying an independent commitment to politically liberal values, given that we all have values that are not political.

This paper offers a reading of the infamous mutual critique between Kant and Herder by criticising the standard account of their tense relation, which attributes a priority of reason to the former and a priority of language to the latter. As Kant thinks that judging can only be realised through its expression in language, and Herder conceives of a linguistic act as the self-conscious positing of meaning, they equally reject any sharp separation of thought from its expression in language. The central difference lies in their opposing accounts of the relation between reason’s striving for metaphysical knowledge and the latter’s linguistic guise.

Hermann Cohen, the founding father of Marburg neo-Kantianism, is known for criticising capitalism from a Kantian ethical perspective. Thus far, the role of the notion of humanity in this critique has been viewed as grounding what I shall call the ‘purposive labour reading’. This reading takes Cohen’s primary interest to lie in a reorganisation of work so that our humanity, which requires us to be treated as ends, remains intact. With the aim to better understand the relevant notion of humanity, I contextualise the discussion within the overall framework of Cohens’ neo-Kantian account of ethical cognition and situate his ideas in the context of his contemporary interlocutors. Revisiting Cohen’s remarks on socialism and capitalism against this backdrop reveals that his discussion of labour serves as an exemplar, showcasing how ethical rationality manifests in the liberal socialists’ demands. I argue that his primary aim was not to prepare the ground for a prescriptive labour theory – though this is likely to follow – but to argue for a framework alternative to historical materialism, allowing us to perceive and interpret social practices in an ethical light.

In the Origins of Kant’s Aesthetics, Robert Clewis characterises Kant’s early views of aesthetic normativity in terms of a synthesis of a rationalist appeal to laws of sensibility and an empiricist appeal to rules of taste that are arrived at through consensus about great works of art. On the consensus approach, sharing the experience of beauty with others is itself a source of pleasure and normativity. For Clewis, the mature Kant no longer ties aesthetic normativity to sociality, but instead grounds it in the a priori principle of judgement. In these comments, I challenge Clewis’ narrative about Kant’s development and argue that the mature Kant continues to connect aesthetic normativity to the sociality of taste.

In this paper, I explore what Robert Clewis, in The Origins of Kant’s Aesthetics, suggests is an ‘analogy’ between humour and beauty. I do this by focusing on Kant’s concept of wit (Witz), which is central to both reflective judgement and humour. By exploring the concept of Witz as a distinctive kind of cognitive activity, I believe a case can be made that the origin of Kant’s mature aesthetic theory in the Critique of the Power of Judgement and his discovery of the principle of taste were, in part, a result of Kant’s thinking about Witz. I therefore share Clewis’s puzzlement about why, in the third Critique, humour, arguably the art of Witz, is not considered to be a beautiful art. I conclude by suggesting a possible reason why Kant thought that a judgement of humour is different from a judgement of beauty.

Robert Clewis focuses on a number of different themes in Kant’s precritical and critical aesthetics in The Origins of Kant’s Aesthetics. Clewis carefully documents where Kant’s views on these themes are the same, where they are different, and why; yet his approach might give readers the impression that Kant lacks a unified conception of aesthetics. I show, on the contrary, that the method and sources Clewis employs also reveal the frameworks within which Kant addresses the themes that Clewis discusses in Origins; the consistencies in Kant’s precritical and critical conceptions of aesthetics; and the changes in his conception of aesthetics that we find in the third Critique.