Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T14:56:15.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant on Moral Dilemmas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2022

Carol Hay
Carol Hay*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell MA, USA
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The standard attribution of ought implies can rules out the possibility of Kantianism permitting the existence of moral dilemmas. Against this, I argue that Kantianism both can and should permit the existence of moral dilemmas. This new take on moral dilemmas should be of particular urgency to those hoping to radicalize Kant, I argue, because the work of oppression theorists shows that moral dilemmas are particularly likely to strike those who are already most vulnerable. The insights of oppression theory also suggest that the heretofore overlooked social and political implications of moral dilemmas are just as philosophically significant as the metaethical and ethical implications.

Keywords

moral dilemmasoppression theoryought implies canmoral residuemoral gapsmoral lucknon-ideal theory
Type
Article
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 27 , Special Issue 4: Special Issue: Radicalizing Kant? , December 2022 , pp. 557 - 572
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. 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

Card, Claudia (1983) The Unnatural Lottery: Character and Moral Luck. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill (2000) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Donagan, Alan (1977) The Theory of Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye, Marilyn (1983) The Politics of Reality. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Carol (2013) Kantianism, Liberalism, and Feminism: Resisting Oppression. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Thomas (2002) Human Welfare and Moral Worth: Kantian Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996) Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Gregor, Mary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lugones, María (2003) Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing Coalition Against Multiple Oppressions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Marcus, Ruth Barcan (1980) ‘Moral Dilemmas and Consistency’. Journal of Philosophy, 77, 121–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Charles (2004) ‘“Ideal Theory” as Ideology’. In DesAutels, Peggy and Urban Walker, Margaret (eds), Moral Psychology (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield), 163–81.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas (1979) Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert (2004) ‘Does “Ought” Imply “Can”? And Did Kant Think it does?’. Utilitas, 16, 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessman, Lisa (2015) Moral Failure: On the Impossible Demands of Morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens (2013) ‘Kantian Dilemmas? Moral Conflict in Kant’s Ethical Theory’. Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie, 95, 36–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Bernard (1981) Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers, 1973-1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen (2008) Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar