Skip to main content

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Kant on Maxims and Moral Motivation

Part of the book series: Studies in German Idealism ((SIGI,volume 21))

  • 269 Accesses

Abstract

This introductory chapter presents two problems that might appear to attach to Kant’s moral philosophy: the problem of misdirected moral attention, and the problem of experiential incongruence. The first problem arises because it seems that, for Kant, when an agent acts from the motive of duty, she acts simply because the maxim of her action is lawlike. This suggests that the good-willed agent’s attention, when she acts from duty, is focussed on the nature of her maxims, rather than on the situations that confront her. This, it is urged, is an unsatisfactory account of morally worthy action. The second problem arises because Kant’s account of moral reasoning appears not to harmonise with the lived experience of moral agency. The central challenge that the book must meet, then, is to show how these problems really do not attach to Kant’s moral thought at all. A brief outline of the book’s aims, structure, and content is provided.

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.

T.S. Eliot, Little Gidding

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kant (1996a), 4:407.

  2. 2.

    Kant (1996a), 4:392.

  3. 3.

    Brewer (2002), p. 539.

  4. 4.

    That rational agents are perennially conscious of the moral law is asserted in the Groundwork

    Common human reason also agrees with this [i.e., with the Categorical Imperative] in its practical appraisals and always has this principle before its eyes [my emphasis]. Kant (1996a), 4:402.

    A similar claim is made in the second Critique:

    One need only analyze the judgment that people pass on the lawfulness of their actions in order to find that, whatever inclination may say to the contrary, their reason, incorruptible and self-constrained, always holds the maxim of the will in an action up to the pure will, that is, to itself inasmuch as it regards itself as a priori practical [my emphasis]. Kant (1996b), 5:32.

  5. 5.

    Kant (1996b), 5:8.

  6. 6.

    That this, for Kant, is the distinction between permissible and obligatory actions, appears to be stated, or at the very least hinted at, in the Metaphysics of Morals :

    That action is permitted (licitum) which is not contrary to obligation; and this freedom which is not limited by any opposing imperative, is called an authorization (facultas moralis). Hence it is obvious what is meant by forbidden (illicitum). Kant (1996c), 6:222.

  7. 7.

    Stratton-Lake (2000), p. 50.

  8. 8.

    Williams (1981), p. 18.

  9. 9.

    Paton (1971), p. 33.

  10. 10.

    Kant (1996a), 4:412.

  11. 11.

    See, for example, McCarty (2009).

  12. 12.

    As we will see in Chap. 5, Stratton-Lake’s position is that the justificatory conception is only one of the accounts of acting from duty to be found in Kant’s works on practical philosophy. He himself suggests a transcendental conception of the Categorical Imperative, according to which the moral law, rather than entering into moral judgement, accounts for its possibility.

  13. 13.

    This doctrine has it that incentives are able to determine the will only in so far as they have been freely incorporated into a maxim.

  14. 14.

    See especially McCarty (2009).

References

  • Brewer, Talbot. 2002. Maxims and Virtues. Philosophical Review 111: 539–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanuel. 1996a. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. In Practical Philosophy. Ed. and Trans. M.J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996b. Critique of Practical Reason. In Practical Philosophy. Ed. and Trans. M.J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996c. Metaphysics of Morals. In Practical Philosophy. Ed. and Trans. M.J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, Richard. 2009. Kant’s Theory of Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paton, H.J. 1971. The Categorical Imperative. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratton-Lake, Philip. 2000. Kant, Duty and Moral Worth. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Bernard. 1981. Persons, Character, and Morality. In Moral Luck, 1–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Herissone-Kelly, P. (2018). Introduction. In: Kant on Maxims and Moral Motivation. Studies in German Idealism, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05572-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics