Paul Guyer

John Rawls lectured directly on the history of modern moral philosophy throughout his 30‐year teaching career at Harvard, and his lectures from the final version of the course were published as Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy (LHMP). This chapter casts some light on Rawls's central attempt to demonstrate the superiority of a position inspired by Immanuel Kant over utilitarianism by focusing on Rawls's treatment of Kant in both Theory of Justice and LHMP. It focuses on Rawls's treatment of Adam Smith and Kant, where in both of those authors the relation between deontological and teleological approaches being more complex than Rawls sometimes suggests.

This paper considers Kant’s understanding of organisms by undertaking a developmental approach to the issue. It presents three different arguments Kant posits in the third Critique regarding the kind of explanation organisms require, and then considers how Kant ultimately seems to find these arguments wanting in the Opus postumum. Due to Kant’s sustained reflections on how to incorporate teleological explanations of organisms into his natural philosophy toward the end of his career, it is argued that it is ultimately our awareness of the freedom of our own purposiveness that leads us to understand organisms in terms of purposes, which causes a fundamental split between the teleological and mechanical views of nature. In this way, Kant can establish an important link between his theoretical and practical philosophy.

John Rawls based his theory of justice, in the work of that name, on a ‘Kantian interpretation’ of the status of human beings as ‘free and equal’ persons. In his subsequent, ‘political rather than metaphysical’ expositions of his theory, the conception of citizens of democracies as ‘free and equal’ persons retained its foundational role. But Rawls appealed only to Kant’s moral philosophy, never to Kant’s own political philosophy as expounded in his 1797 Doctrine of Right in theMetaphysics of Morals. I argue here that the structure of Kant’s political philosophy, with its categories of the innate right to freedom, private acquired right and public right, can clarify the relationship between Rawls’s two principles of justice and his scheme of basic liberties and primary goods.

Hannah Ginsborg rejects my ‘two-acts’ interpretation of Kant’s conception of aesthetic judgement as untrue to Kant’s text and as philosophically problematic, especially because it entails that every object must be experienced as beautiful. I reject her criticisms, and argue that it is her own ‘one-act’ interpretation that is liable to these criticisms. But I also suggest that her emphasis on Kant’s ‘transcendental explanation’ of pleasure as a self-maintaining mental state suggests an alternative to the common view that pleasure is a distinctive feeling, even if Ginsborg herself does not draw that conclusion.

During the 1760s and 1770s, Kant entertained a naturalistic approach to ethics based on the supposed psychological fact of a human love for freedom. During the critical period, especially in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant clearly rejected such an approach. But his attempt at a metaphysical foundation for ethics in section III of the Groundwork was equally clearly a failure. Kant recognized this in his appeal to the "fact of reason" argument in the Critique of Practical Reason, but thereby gave up on any attempt to ground the fundamental principle of morality at all. So it is of interest to see how far we might now proceed along the lines of his original naturalistic approach.

Authors such as Barbara Herman have argued that Kant should be understood as modeling moral motivation by the idea of a choice or commitment to a fundamental maxim rather than through the idea of some sort of desire or feeling in favor of the morally preferred action outweighing or overwhelming inclination in favor of some alternative. I argue that this approach fails to do justice to Kant’s own two-level approach to moral motivation, on which the choice of the moral law as one’s fundamental maxim expresses itself through the cultivation of feelings that can outweigh contra-moral inclinations. Kant builds this model upon his transcendental idealism, of course, but we could jettison his metaphysics and still have a better model of moral motivation. Autoren wie Barbara Herman haben argumentiert, dass man Kant so verstehen sollte, dass die moralische Motivation durch die Idee einer Wahl oder einer Zustimmung zu einer fundamentalen Maxime modelliert wird und nicht durch die Idee einer Art von Wunsch oder Gefühl für die moralisch bevorzugte Handlung, die Neigungen für Alternativen überwiegen oder verdrängen. In diesem Aufsatz wird argumentiert, dass man auf diese Weise Kants Zwei-Ebenen-Auffassung einer moralischen Motivation nicht gerecht werden kann, der zufolge die Wahl des moralischen Gesetzes als seiner fundamentalen Maxime sich durch die Kultivierung von Gefühlen, die die kontra-moralischen Neigungen überwiegen, ausdrückt. Kant baut bei diesem Modell natürlich auf seinem transzendentalen Idealismus auf, aber wenn wir seine Metaphysik über Bord werfen, haben wir damit ein besseres Modell für moralische Motivation.

This volume provides an extensive translation of the notes and fragments that survived Kant's death in 1804. These include marginalia, lecture notes, and sketches and drafts for his published works. They are important as an indispensable resource for understanding Kant's intellectual development and published works, casting fresh light on Kant's conception of his own philosophical methods and his relations to his predecessors, as well as on central doctrines of his work such as the theory of space, time and categories, the refutations of scepticism and metaphysical dogmatism, the theory of the value of freedom and the possibility of free will, the conception of God, the theory of beauty, and much more.

Abstract:Both Mendelssohn and Kant were strong supporters of the separation between church and state, but their arguments differed. Mendelssohn joined many others in following Locke in arguing that only freely arrived at conviction could be pleasing to God, so the state could not serve the purpose of religion in attempting to enforce it: a religious premise for religious liberty. Kant argued for religious liberty as an immediate consequence of the innate right to freedom. I suggest that Kant’s straightforward argument is worth recalling in the present attack on the separation of church and state in the US and elsewhere.

Two foremost spokesmen for the German Enlightenment, Moses Mendelssohn and Immanuel Kant, continued the defence of the separation of church and state that was at the heart of the Enlightenment in general and advocated by such great predecessors as Roger Williams and John Locke and contemporaries such as James Madison. The difference between Mendelssohn and Kant on which I focus here is that while Mendelssohn argues against his critics that Judaism is the appropriate religion for a specific people without being appropriate for all, thus implying more generally that different religions are appropriate for groups with different histories, Kant argues first that Judaism is not a genuine religion at all, second that Christianity provides the most suitable symbols or aesthetic representations of the core truths of the religion of reason, and finally that in any case all historical religion will ultimately fade away in favour of the pure religion of reason. Kant’s assumptions are tendentious and his conclusion implausible; Mendelssohn’s view that religion and differences of religion are here to stay provides a far stronger basis for genuine toleration and a strict separation of church and state.