Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:57:34.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kantian Agents and their Significant Others

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2018

Nataliya Palatnik
Nataliya Palatnik*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Critics of Kant’s moral philosophy often object that his emphasis on individual autonomy makes him unable to account for our ‘second-personal’ or ‘bipolar’ duties. These are duties we owe to other people rather than duties we have with respect to them – as we might have duties with respect to the environment or works of art. With a recent and novel formulation of this objection as my foil, I argue that the apparent force of the ‘bipolarity’ objections rests on a failure to appreciate Kant’s inherently practical approach to ethics. On the positive side, reflection on criticisms of Kant’s treatment of ‘bipolar’ normativity helps to shed new light on his conception of practical agency and its place in his system of morals.

Keywords

Kantcategorical imperativeduty to othersbipolar obligationsdeontic normativityempty formalismpractical judgement
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 285 - 306
Copyright
© Kantian Review 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

Darwall, Stephen (2006) The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Darwall, Stephen (2012) ‘Bipolar Obligation’. In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 7 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 333–367.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen (2009) The Form of Practical Knowledge: A Study of the Categorical Imperative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret (2004) ‘Scanlon on Promissory Obligation: The Problem of Promisee’s Rights’. Journal of Philosophy, 101 (2), 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, Barbara (2007) Moral Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1974) Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Trans. Mary J. Gregor. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1993) Opus Postumum. Trans. Eckart Förster and Michael Rosen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996) Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. and ed. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2000) Critique of the Power of Judgment. Trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews, ed. Paul Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2001) Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Trans. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2004) Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Trans. Michael Friedman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora (2000) Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (2003) Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Michael (2004) ‘What is it to Wrong Someone? A Puzzle about Justice’. In R. Jay Wallace, Philip Pettit, Samuel Scheffler and Michael Smith (eds), Reason and Value (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 333–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, R. Jay (2007) ‘Reasons, Relations, and Commands: Reflections on Darwall’. Ethics, 118, 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar