Formula Of Universal Law Research Articles

О новой попытке вывести позитивные обязанности из формулы универсального закона Канта

According to the positive duties objection, it is not possible to derive positive duties from Kant’s Formula of Universal Law (FUL). However, in his recent “Deriving Positive Duties from Kant’s Formula of Universal Law”, Guus Duindam tries to answer this objection. More specifically, Duindam tries to show how both a duty of benevolence and a duty of self-perfection can be derived from the FUL. I critically examine Duindam’s arguments. I maintain that Duindam’s argument for the positive duty of benevolence is ambiguous and that this ambiguity exposes him to a fatal dilemma: on one horn, Duindam faces the same objection that he concedes to be effective against other attempts to answer the positive duties objection; on the other horn, the procedure he recommends cannot be based on the FUL (because it does not evaluate actions on the basis of their corresponding maxims). In addition, I maintain that Duindam’s benevolence argument rests on a procedure that is, in general, intractable and, in this particular case, foredoomed (because it can be shown that there are no positive duties of the kind he tries to derive). From there, I turn to Duindam’s argument for the positive duty of self-perfection. I explain that Duindam’s derivation of the duty of self-perfection, even if successful, does not answer the positive duties objection. This is because Duindam never appeals to the FUL in his derivation of the duty of self-perfection (the derivation is based, rather, on instrumental reasoning from the second-order end to accomplish our first-order ends). I elaborate on this by comparing and contrasting Duindam’s argument with Oliver Sensen’s interpretation of how to apply the FUL in the latter’s recent “Universal Law and Poverty Relief”.

Deriving Positive Duties from Kant's Formula of Universal Law

Abstract According to the objection from positive duties, Kant's Formula of Universal Law is flawed because it cannot be used to derive any affirmative moral requirements. This paper offers a response to that objection and proposes a novel way to derive positive duties from Kant's formula. The Formula of Universal Law yields positive duties to adopt our own perfection and others’ happiness as ends because we could not rationally fail to will those ends as universal ends.

A Defense and Development of the Volitional Self-Contradiction Interpretation

Kant’s Formula of Universal Law (FUL) is generally believed to require you to act only on the basis of maxims that you can will without contradiction to become universal laws. In “Contradiction and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law” (2017), I have proposed to read the FUL instead as requiring that, for any maxim on which you act, you can will two things simultaneously, without volitional self-contradiction: (1) willing the maxim as your own action principle and (2) willing that it become a universal law. In the present essay, I reply to comments by Mark Timmons, Michael Walschots, Paola Romero, and Stefano Lo Re. In response to their comments concerning the application of the FUL, I expand the interpretive framework of the Volitional Self-Contradiction Interpretation. I argue that Kant also constructs the diagnostic volitional self-contradiction as a contradiction between (1) willing a tested maxim to become a universal law and (2) willing what humans, qua finite rational beings, necessarily will, namely the means to their actual and possible future ends. I also clarify how the two ways in which Kant specifies the test are related. Furthermore, I clarify the relation between the Volitional Self-Contradiction interpretation and other interpretations of the FUL, in particular the ‘Practical Contradiction’ and ‘Logical Contradiction’ interpretations, as well as its difference from the Golden Rule. I also address the objection that the volitional self-contradiction is superfluous, clarify the relation between the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of the Law of Nature, and explain why the will of an immoral agent does not contain a volitional self-contradiction of the type at issue.

From Volitional Self-Contradiction to Moral Deliberation: Between Kleingeld and Timmons’s Interpretations of Kant’s Formula of Universal Law

From Volitional Self-Contradiction to Moral Deliberation: Between Kleingeld and Timmons’s Interpretations of Kant’s Formula of Universal Law

The Volitional Self-Contradiction Interpretation of Kant’s Formula of Universal Law: A Response to Kleingeld

In this paper I critically engage with Pauline Kleingeld’s ‘volitional self-contradiction’ interpretation of Kant’s formula of universal law. I make three remarks: first, I seek to clarify what it means for a contradiction to be volitional as opposed to logical; second, I suggest that her interpretation might need to be closer to Korsgaard’s ‘practical contradiction’ interpretation than she thinks; and third, I suggest that more work needs to be done to explain how a volitional self-contradiction generates both a ‘contradiction in conception’ and a ‘contradiction in will.’

The Role of Kant in Sidgwick’s Classical Utilitarianism: Two Self-Evident Axioms and the Partial Convergence between Kantianism and Utilitarianism

AbstractAmong the most surprising claims in The Methods of Ethics is Sidgwick’s assertion that his key ethical axioms are corroborated by Kant. This article analyses Sidgwick’s claim that his axioms of justice and benevolence closely correspond to particular features in Kant. I shall argue that his claim of agreement with Kant was a serious overstatement. In particular, the restrictions which Sidgwick places on his acceptance of Kant’s universal law formula of the categorical imperative (FUL) seem to call into question whether the alleged convergence with the axiom of justice has a solid basis. Further, Sidgwick seemed unaware of a crucial aspect of Kant’s conception of the humanity formula that constitutes a substantial divide between their views on benevolence. The upshot is that the divide between Kantian and Sidgwickian ethics appears deeper than Sidgwick seemed to realize. This analysis is confirmed by Sidgwick’s famous worries regarding freedom and the existence of God in Kant’s work.

Self-Contradictions of the Will: Reply to Jens Timmermann

Abstract In this article, I reply to Jens Timmermann’s critical discussion of my essay “Contradiction and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law”. I first consider Timmermann’s reasons for rejecting my interpretation of the Formula of Universal Law. I argue that the self-contradiction relevant to determining a maxim’s moral status should not be sought in the imagined world in which the maxim is a universal law. I then discuss Timmermann’s suggestion that something like a volitional self-contradiction is found within the will of the immoral agent. I deny this and clarify that the relevant contradiction is diagnosed counterfactually in moral reflection. Finally, I explain the differences between Timmermann’s account, Korsgaard’s Practical Contradiction interpretation, and my own Volitional Self-Contradiction interpretation.

Why Positive Duties cannot Be Derived from Kant’s Formula of Universal Law

Why Positive Duties cannot Be Derived from Kant’s Formula of Universal Law

Obligatory Actions, Obligatory Maxims

AbstractIn this article, I confront Parfit’s Mixed Maxims Objection. I argue that recent attempts to respond to this objection fail, and I argue that their failure is compounded by the failure of recent attempts to show how the Formula of Universal Law can be used to demarcate the category of obligatory maxims. I then set out my own response to the objection, drawing on remarks from Kant’sMetaphysics of Moralsfor inspiration and developing a novel account of how the Formula of Universal Law can be employed to determine the deontic status of action tokens, action types and maxims.

The Value of Humanity

What do we mean when we talk about “humanity”? Is it simply everyone who is alive? Or is it, rather, something about us that makes us unique? This paper provides an introduction to Immanuel Kant’s concept of humanity, understood as a value. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is discussed, especially the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity. The paper also recalls the metaphysical pedigree of Kant’s concept of humanity. The paper focuses on Kant’s works, the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and Critique of Practical Reason, but also draws upon the work of Derick Parfit, John Rawls, Thomas Scanlon, Onora O’Neill and Christine Korsgaard among others.

Hegel and Right. A Study of the Philosophy of Right by Philip J. Kain

Reviewed by: Hegel and Right. A Study of the Philosophy of Right by Philip J. Kain Mark Tunick Philip J. Kain. Hegel and Right. A Study of the Philosophy of Right. Albany: SUNY Press, 2018. Pp. x + 243. Cloth, $90. There are many studies of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Philip Kain does not break new ground in Hegel and Right. Nor does he deal with the German scholarship that did, by posing the possibility of an esoteric Hegel belying the exoteric author caving to censorship pressure. Still, he has provided us a worthwhile book that touches on some controversial issues. Kain professes to be a Marxian and social democrat who opposes capital punishment and supports same-sex marriage and, perhaps not coincidentally, his Hegel is open to at least the latter three positions. Some scholars of Hegel may be dismayed that there is little reference to Hegel's Logic, though they should appreciate Kain emphasizing how the Absolute is the final stage in Philosophy of Right, and connecting the Phenomenology and Philosophy of Right in claiming that the former work proves the Absolute, a proof Hegel is said to take for granted in the latter work (32–38). While Kain's review of Abstract Right, Morality, and Ethical Life may not uncover anything new, he does offer several illuminating ways of understanding key elements of Hegel's work. His discussion of corporations is quite helpful. Kain emphasizes how Hegel wants the corporations back after they had been "abandoned," to fulfill a function similar to labor unions in helping address the problem of poverty (122–24). In explaining how Hegel finds Kant's formula of universal law lacking in content, Kain supposes I pocket an apple from a fruit stand: "How do I tell whether [that] was an act of theft?" It depends on if I live in a market or communist society. Kain's simple example powerfully and effectively makes his point: we must have a world with content to know what is right (60). Kain's discussions can illuminate, but not always. I will focus on what he says about Hegel's theory of punishment. Kain says that Hegel's justification of punishment "fails" and that he gives a valuable argument against punishment despite himself (43). He quotes Hegel echoing Kant, that in committing the crime the criminal lays down a principle and we punish him by universalizing that principle and turning it back on the criminal. Kain finds that view unsatisfying: "If the criminal's principle is a crime for the criminal, if it is wrong for the criminal, if it is irrational for the criminal, how can it flip into being right, just, and rational for us?" (44–45). But I think he has misunderstood Hegel. For Hegel, we punish to vindicate right: if we did not punish in some way, it is as if what the criminal did was not wrong (and Kain is aware of this justification, 50–51). Hegel also says the criminal's will is split: the thief's particular will is to steal, but his implicit will is the universal—to respect property. The criminal, after all, does not want someone else to steal what he illicitly took and now possesses. Hegel's argument is not that we should universalize the principle that theft is right, as Kain says. Rather, it is that in committing the crime, the criminal goes against his implicit will: the criminal, insofar as he is rational, knows that respecting property is right, and punishment is merely turning the universal will, which is the criminal's implicitly, [End Page 355] back on himself. Kain then says we do not need to establish a right to punish because there is a right of self-defense: we can exclude the criminal, rather than impose what he calls "San Quentin" punishment (48–49). Yet punishment is not essentially that. For Hegel it annuls crime and vindicates right, and how we inflict it depends on custom and objectives like deterrence and reform. Hegel may well criticize "San Quentin" punishment in a stable society, but not punishment per se. Perhaps the biggest challenge in interpreting the Rechtsphilosophie is explaining Hegel's account...

A Tale of Two Conflicts

Abstract Pauline Kleingeld’s “Contradiction and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law”, published in this journal in 2017, presents a powerful challenge to what has become the standard (‘practical’) reconstruction of the categorical imperative. In this response to Kleingeld, I argue that she is right to emphasise the ‘simultaneity requirement’ - that we must be able to will a proposed maxim and ‘simulataneously’, ‘also’ or ‘at the same time’ the maxim in its universalised form - but I deny that this removes the categorical imperative test from the world of universalisation because the agent must be understood as part of that world. There are two distinct types of conflict: a contradiction that results from non-universalisability and Kleingeld’s ‘volitional’ conflict, located within the will of the immoral agent. The standard ‘practical’ reconstruction of the categorical imperative remains largely intact.

A Contradiction of the Right Kind: Convenience Killing and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law

One of the most important difficulties facing Kant’s Formula of Universal Law (FUL) is its apparent inability to show that it is always impermissible to kill others for the sake of convenience. This difficulty has led current Kantian ethicists to de-emphasize the FUL or at least complement it with other Kantian principles when dealing with murder. The difficulty stems from the fact that the maxim of convenience killing fails to generate a ‘contradiction in conception’, producing only a ‘contradiction in the will’ when subjected to the two-fold test associated with the FUL. This result is thought to imply that the FUL allows us sometimes to kill for the sake of convenience. In this essay, I argue that the very diagnosis of the problem rests on a mistake, and that if the maxim of convenience killing generates a contradiction in the will, then acting on it is never permissible.

Thinking about cases: Applying Kant's universal law formula

AbstractAccording to a widespread view, Kant's claim that moral wrongness has its ground in a contradiction underlying every immoral action is a “bluff” rooted in “dogmatic moralism”. Ever since Benjamin Constant's exchange with Kant, counterexamples have played a crucial role in showing why Kant's “universalization procedure” fails to determine the moral validity of our judgments. Despite recent attempts to bring Kant's ethics closer to Aristotle's, these counterexamples have prevailed. Most recently, Jesse Prinz has launched another attack along the same lines. Prinz insists that Kant's universalization procedure fundamentally begs the question and fails to generate plausible results. Even authors who are very sympathetic to Kant, such as Allen Wood, have tried to downplay universalization, focusing instead on other formulations of the categorical imperative. In this paper, I respond directly to four of the most prominent counterexamples. In each case, I aim to show how we can uphold Kant's fundamental claim that the universal law formulation of the categorical imperative articulates the form of our particular moral judgments.

The Problem of Relevant Descriptions and the Scope of Moral Principles

AbstractIn her seminal attack on modern moral philosophy, G. E. M. Anscombe claims that Kant's ‘rule about universalizable maxims is useless without stipulations as to what shall count as a relevant description of an action with a view to constructing a maxim about it’. Although this so‐called problem of relevant descriptions has received considerable attention in the literature, there is little agreement on how it should be understood or solved. My aim in this paper is, first, to clarify the problem by clearing up several misunderstandings, and, second, to show that the problem is rooted in a standard assumption about Kant's stance on the scope of moral principles—an assumption that precludes its solution. I argue that the problem consists in the fact that Kant's formula of universal law seems to stand in need of an account of moral sensibility that does not render the formula superfluous. But, as my discussion of existing solutions reveals, there can be no such account. Instead, I propose a dissolution: we should think of the formula of universal law itself as Kant's account of moral sensibility. In order to do so, we must reject the standard assumption that a principle is universal if and only if it holds for all instances of the action type that it specifies.

Contradiction and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law

AbstractKant’s most prominent formulation of the Categorical Imperative, known as the Formula of Universal Law (FUL), is generally thought to demand that one act only on maxims that one can will as universal laws without this generating a contradiction. Kant’s view is standardly summarized as requiring the ‘universalizability’ of one’s maxims and described in terms of the distinction between ‘contradictions in conception’ and ‘contradictions in the will’. Focusing on the underappreciated significance of the simultaneity condition included in the FUL, I argue, by contrast, that the principle is better read as requiring that one be able to will

Kant's Universal Law Formula Revisited

AbstractKantians are increasingly deserting the universal law formula in favor of the humanity formula. The former, they argue, is open to various decisive objections; the two are not equivalent; and it is only by appealing to the humanity formula that Kant can reliably generate substantive implications from his theory of an acceptable sort. These assessments of the universal law formula, which clash starkly with Kant's own assessment of it, are based on various widely accepted interpretative assumptions. These assumptions, it is argued in this article, depend on misleading translations of key terms; selective attention to Kant's concrete examples; not taking seriously Kant's theoretical claims about the relations among his various ideas; and a failure to take into account Kant's idiosyncratic definitions of key concepts. The article seeks to right these interpretative wrongs, and finds that the universal law formula is not open to many of the standard objections.

The Moral-Psychology of the Common Agent – A Reply to Ido Geiger

Ido Geiger's paper ‘What it is the Use of the Universal Law Formula of the Categorical Imperative?’ is part of a growing trend in Kant scholarship, which stresses the significance of the rational competence of ordinary human beings. I argue that this approach needs to take into account that the common agent is an active reasoner who has the means to find out what she ought to do. The purpose of my paper is to show how universality already figures in the active reasoning of pre-theoretical agents in the form of a common universalization test. I present textual evidence for this test, and argue that this conception does not present pre-theoretical moral cognition in an overly intellectualistic or mechanistic way. Finally, I discuss how, on the pre-theoretical level, universalization relates to humanity or a rational agent's special status. Universalization is present to common agents in the form of procedures or questions that we ask ourselves, humanity as an awareness of certain particularly blatant violations of duty. These two different modes of cognition of duty are reflected in two different formulae of the Categorical Imperative.

Why is Tax Avoidance Immoral? Ethics, Metaethics and Taxes

Along with intensified efforts to combat aggressive tax planning, observed at the international, the EU and national levels, the question of moral status of tax avoidance becomes acute. We are far from consensus as to how it should be answered.The main purpose of this paper is to present and defend against certain counterarguments the argument following the pattern of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative in order to make a case for immorality of tax avoidance. This is done against the backdrop of previous meta-ethical remarks, concerning ethical strategies built to approach the problem of tax avoidance and its moral status.The thrust of the argument is that tax avoidance infringes the Kant's moral principle – the Formula of Universal Law. The latter essentially demands that the agent’s rule of behavior (maxim) be such that it could be universalized without contradiction (or, as a matter of fact, any other offence to reason). A taxpayer engaged in tax avoidance violates internal rationality of the legal system and contradicts himself – his ‘maxim’ cannot be generalized. He assumes the existence of the law but acts in a way which if universally adopted, would make the law dysfunctional or nonexistent.In a Kantian vein, the application of the categorical imperative to tax avoidance shows two aspects: egalitarian and dignitarian. These aspects are concurrently: typical for any elaboration of an argument following Kant’s line of reasoning and characteristic for the present-day reflection on law.

The Formula of Universal Law: A Reconstruction

This paper provides a methodologically original construction of Kant’s “Formula of Universal Law” (FUL). A formal structure consisting of possible worlds and games—a “game frame”—is used to implement Kant’s concept of a maxim and to define the two tests FUL comprises: the “contradiction in conception” and “contradiction in the will” tests. The paper makes two contributions. Firstly, the model provides a formal account of the variables that are built into FUL: agents, maxims, intentions, actions, and outcomes. This establishes a clear benchmark for understanding how the mechanics of FUL actually work. Secondly, the analysis of the resulting framework sheds new light on discussions about the implications of FUL. On the basis of this, we suggest a move to “comprehensive Kantianism’, which is the application of FUL to systems of maxims rather than to isolated maxims.