IF 1.1 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Aaron Wells
{"title":"Jörg Noller and John Walsh (eds), Kant’s Early Critics on Freedom of the Will Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022 Pp. xlvii + 315 ISBN 9781108482462 (hbk) £74.99","authors":"Aaron Wells","doi":"10.1017/S1369415422000401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"account of rationalization than the one currently on offer in existing Kant scholarship. Anyone at all convinced, in ordinary life, of our talents for self-deception, as well as our ability to get so many things wrong in moral matters, will want to find as expansive an account of rationalization as possible in Kant. On the other hand, readers may wonder how far Sticker can really push a Kantian account of rationalization. As Sticker himself notes, rationalization against the moral law can never be ‘allencompassing’ (p. 42). To quote: ‘An ideology is not adopted instead of the moral law, but as an addition’ or ‘modification’ (p. 42; Sticker’s emphasis). But does it make sense to think of Garve’s eudaimonism as an ‘addition’ to the categorical imperative? Or, consider another fascinating example from the very end of Sticker’s book, namely a moral ideology according to which our duty to be philanthropic is so demanding that we can lie, cheat and steal in the name of benevolence (p. 55). Such an extreme morality admittedly contains vestiges of a Kantian conception of duty insofar as it acknowledges the importance of helping others. But I am less confident than Sticker that this form of altruism would count as a distortion of morality that only ‘adds’ to our representation of the moral law. Nonetheless, Sticker’s challenge to Kantians to widen the scope of rationalization is a well-taken one that anyone writing on self-deception in Kant will have to wrestle with. And overall, his book is a first-rate philosophical work and an extremely important contribution to the field.","PeriodicalId":54140,"journal":{"name":"Kantian Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kantian Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415422000401","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

比现有康德学术中目前提供的合理化解释更合理。在日常生活中,任何人如果相信我们有自欺欺人的天赋,以及我们在道德问题上犯下如此多错误的能力,都会希望在康德身上找到尽可能广泛的合理化解释。另一方面,读者可能想知道Sticker能在多大程度上真正推动康德的合理化。正如Sticker自己所指出的,反对道德法则的合理化永远不可能是“包容性的”(第42页)。引用:“意识形态不是代替道德法则而被采用的,而是作为一种附加”或“修改”(第42页;Sticker的重点)。但是,把加夫的eudaimonism看作是对绝对命令的“补充”,这有意义吗?或者,想想Sticker书末的另一个引人入胜的例子,即一种道德意识形态,根据这种意识形态,我们慈善的义务是如此苛刻,以至于我们可以以慈善的名义撒谎、欺骗和偷窃(第55页)。无可否认,这种极端的道德包含了康德责任观的残余,因为它承认帮助他人的重要性。但我不像Sticker那样相信,这种形式的利他主义会被视为对道德的扭曲,只会“增加”我们对道德法的代表性。尽管如此,斯蒂克对康德主义者提出的扩大合理化范围的挑战是一个公认的挑战,任何在康德写自我欺骗的人都必须与之斗争。总的来说,他的书是一流的哲学著作,对这一领域做出了极其重要的贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Jörg Noller and John Walsh (eds), Kant’s Early Critics on Freedom of the Will Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022 Pp. xlvii + 315 ISBN 9781108482462 (hbk) £74.99
account of rationalization than the one currently on offer in existing Kant scholarship. Anyone at all convinced, in ordinary life, of our talents for self-deception, as well as our ability to get so many things wrong in moral matters, will want to find as expansive an account of rationalization as possible in Kant. On the other hand, readers may wonder how far Sticker can really push a Kantian account of rationalization. As Sticker himself notes, rationalization against the moral law can never be ‘allencompassing’ (p. 42). To quote: ‘An ideology is not adopted instead of the moral law, but as an addition’ or ‘modification’ (p. 42; Sticker’s emphasis). But does it make sense to think of Garve’s eudaimonism as an ‘addition’ to the categorical imperative? Or, consider another fascinating example from the very end of Sticker’s book, namely a moral ideology according to which our duty to be philanthropic is so demanding that we can lie, cheat and steal in the name of benevolence (p. 55). Such an extreme morality admittedly contains vestiges of a Kantian conception of duty insofar as it acknowledges the importance of helping others. But I am less confident than Sticker that this form of altruism would count as a distortion of morality that only ‘adds’ to our representation of the moral law. Nonetheless, Sticker’s challenge to Kantians to widen the scope of rationalization is a well-taken one that anyone writing on self-deception in Kant will have to wrestle with. And overall, his book is a first-rate philosophical work and an extremely important contribution to the field.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Kantian Review
Kantian Review PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: The journal aims to publish the best contemporary work on Kant and Kantian issues and places an emphasis on those current philosophical debates which reflect a Kantian influence. Almost all recent Western philosophy makes some reference to the work of Kant, either consciously rejecting or consciously endorsing some aspect of that work. In epistemology, in philosophy of mind and language, in moral and political philosophy, and in aesthetics, such Kantian influences are widely acknowledged and extensively discussed. Kant"s work has also increasingly become a concern for the social and political sciences. The journal strengthens this interest both by establishing interpretations of Kant"s own writing and by discussing the substance of the related current philosophical debates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信