Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:21:20.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Conditionality of Hypothetical Imperatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2013

Jamsheed Siyar
Jamsheed Siyar*
Affiliation:
College of Wooster Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kant famously distinguishes between the categorical imperative (CI) – the fundamental principle of morality – and hypothetical imperatives (HIs), which are instrumental norms. On the standard reading, Kant subscribes to the ‘disjunctive reading’ of HIs, which takes HIs to be consistency requirements that bind agents in exactly the same way whether or not agents are subject to CI and whether or not they conform their choices to CI. I argue that this reading cannot be squared with Kant's account of an agent's disposition, in particular his claim that cognition of CI is a necessary condition of willing a maxim. I further argue that Kant could not accept an account of HIs as consistency requirements. Finally, I outline Kant's conception of HIs as non-disjunctive requirements that arise when and only when agents will permissible ends. This account can help recapture Kant's conception of the unity of rational norms.

Keywords

endsdispositionhypothetical imperativesinstrumental rationalityKantKorsgaaarddisjunctive readingmaximsmost rational finite beingwill
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , November 2013 , pp. 439 - 460
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2013 

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, John (1999) ‘Normative Requirements’. Ratio, 12, 398–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, John (2001) ‘Normative Practical Reasoning’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 75, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen (1993) ‘Allison on Rational Agency’. Inquiry, 36, 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, Barbara (1993) ‘Moral Deliberation and the Derivation of Duties’. In The Practice of Moral Judgment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 132–158.Google Scholar
Hill, Thomas E Jr. (1973) ‘The Hypothetical Imperative’. Philosophical Review, 82, 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Thomas E Jr. (1989) ‘Kant's Theory of Practical Reason’. The Monist, 72, 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996) The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1997a) Critique of Practical Reason, ed. and trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1997b) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, ed. and trans. Allen Wood and George di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (1996) ‘Morality as Freedom’. In Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M (1997) ‘The Normativity of Instrumental Reason’. In Garrett Cullity and Berys Gaut (eds), Ethics and Practical Reason (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 213–254.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M (2008) The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reath, Andrews (1994) ‘Legislating the Moral Law’. Nous, 28, 435–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Mark (2004) ‘The Scope of Instrumental Reason’. Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Mark (2005) ‘The Hypothetical Imperative?’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Mark (2009) ‘Means-End Coherence, Stringency, and Subjective Reasons’. Philosophical Studies, 143, 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Jeremy (2010) ‘Do Hypothetical Imperatives Require Categorical Imperatives?’. European Journal of Philosophy, 18, 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setiya, Kieran (2007) ‘Cognitivism about Instrumental Reason’. Ethics, 117, 649–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, Jonathan (2010) ‘Defending the Wide-Scope Approach to Instrumental Reason’. Philosophical Studies, 147, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W (1999) Kant's Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar