Ina Goy

In this paper, I treat the question of whether and in what regard Kant's theory of biology contains a version of the argument from design, which is the question of whether Kant considers the purposive order of organized nature as a physicotheological proof for the existence of God, and in turn, the existence of God as the supersensible ground for the teleological order of organized nature. As an introduction to the topic, I name traditional examples of the argument from design (section 1). I then outline Kant's changing attitude towards the argument in his Theory of Heavens, his Argument essay and the three Critiques, highlighting Kant's return to the argument from design in the CPJ after examining and rejecting it in his earlier writings. I elaborate in detail Kant's different uses of the argument in the "Critique of the Teleological Power of Judgment" (section 2). In section 3, I develop a consistent reading of Kant's references to the physicotheological proof in the "Critique of the Teleological Power of Judgment": in the "Analytic" he develops a teleological account of nature that makes no use of the argument from design but is consistent with it. In the "Dialectic" and the "Methodology", however, Kant discusses more ambitious systematic questions: the unity of the theoretical laws of nature and the unity of the natural and the supernatural moral laws. These are questions that require an explicit reference to the argument from design (section 3).

Among the most important controversies about the form and content of the table of the categories of freedom are the questions, first, what the table of the categories of freedom is about; second, if the categories of freedom have moral content or if they can be morally indifferent; and third, if the categories of freedom are a priori unconditioned or a posteriori conditioned concepts. I will argue, first, that the categories of freedom thematize particular aspects of determining grounds of human actions and man's voluntary treatment of these determining grounds. Second, they are determining grounds of human actions "with respect to the concepts of the good and evil" (CprR 5:66.17-18), that is, they do have good or evil moral content and cannot be morally indifferent. And third, all categories of freedom thematize aspects of determining grounds of human actions under empirical conditions in their relation to the unconditioned: the practical law (which is itself not part of the table of the categories of freedom) and the generation of moral contents (the concepts of good and evil which are derived from the practical law).