Suchergebnisse

Jens Timmerman illuminates Immanuel Kant's answer to an age-old philosophical question: what happens when human beings fail to do as reason bids? He shows that Kant's hybrid theory comprises Socratic intellectualism in the realm of prudence along with an anti-intellectualist or volitional account of immoral action.

This book treats Kant's attempt to harmonize moral law, natural law, and moral freedom within the context of his ethic. It offers insight into a highly developed, differentiated notional system that comes amazingly close to our everyday idea of moral responsibility

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to settle the controversy around Kant's notorious discussion of maternal infanticide in the 'Doctrine of Right' of 1797. How should a state punish an unmarried mother who has killed her newborn infant? The text (at DoR VI 335–37) is obscure. Three readings have been defended in the literature: 1. Lenience. Maternal infanticide does not count as murder; so, capital punishment is inappropriate. On this view, the child does not enjoy the full recognition of the law (this is the standard view). 2. Temporary privilege. Lenience should prevail as long as social attitudes are barbaric and treating maternal infanticide like regular cases of murder is perceived to be unjust. The regular punishment for murder will be appropriate once sexual mores have changed. The child will then enjoy the full protection of the law (Hruschka, Varden). 3. No lenience. Capital punishment, though it appears to be unjust, is actually just and ought to be applied. Any child, whether born to married parents or not, enjoys the full protection of the law (Brandt, Uleman). Based on a close examination of the passage and the context of contemporary laws and attitudes, Kant is not, it will be argued, advocating lenience but certain legislative reforms, which are needed to dispel the perception that capital punishment is unjust. Progressive legislation will change social attitudes, not vice versa. Moreover, it will be shown that Kant does not, appearances notwithstanding, endorse the thesis that a child born out of wedlock has been smuggled into the state like 'prohibited goods' or 'contraband merchandise', which would deprive the child of the protection of the state; that is the view with which Kant saddles Cesare Beccaria.

The aim of this paper is to settle the controversy around Kant's notorious discussion of maternal infanticide in the 'Doctrine of Right' of 1797. How should a state punish an unmarried mother who has killed her newborn infant? The text (at DoR VI 335–37) is obscure. Three readings have been defended in the literature: 1. Lenience. Maternal infanticide does not count as murder; so, capital punishment is inappropriate. On this view, the child does not enjoy the full recognition of the law (this is the standard view). 2. Temporary privilege. Lenience should prevail as long as social attitudes are barbaric and treating maternal infanticide like regular cases of murder is perceived to be unjust. The regular punishment for murder will be appropriate once sexual mores have changed. The child will then enjoy the full protection of the law (Hruschka, Varden). 3. No lenience. Capital punishment, though it appears to be unjust, is actually just and ought to be applied. Any child, whether born to married parents or not, enjoys the full protection of the law (Brandt, Uleman). Based on a close examination of the passage and the context of contemporary laws and attitudes, Kant is not, it will be argued, advocating lenience but certain legislative reforms, which are needed to dispel the perception that capital punishment is unjust. Progressive legislation will change social attitudes, not vice versa. Moreover, it will be shown that Kant does not, appearances notwithstanding, endorse the thesis that a child born out of wedlock has been smuggled into the state like 'prohibited goods' or 'contraband merchandise', which would deprive the child of the protection of the state; that is the view with which Kant saddles Cesare Beccaria. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

Abstract: This paper explores the possibility of moral conflict in Kant's ethics. An analysis of the only explicit discussion of the topic in his published writings confirms that there is no room for genuine moral dilemmas. Conflict is limited to nonconclusive 'grounds' of obligation. They arise only in the sphere of ethical duty and, though defeasible, ought to be construed as the result of valid arguments an agent correctly judges to apply in the situation at hand. While it is difficult to determine in theory what makes some of them stronger than others, these 'grounds' can account for practical residue in conflict cases and for a plausible form of agent regret. The principle that 'ought implies can' survives intact.