Romero, Paola (2023) From volitional self-contradiction to moral deliberation: between Kleingeld and Timmons’s interpretations of Kant’s formula of universal law. Philosophia (United States), 51 (2). 477 - 481. ISSN 0048-3893
Full text not available from this repository.Abstract
My aim in this note is to shed light on ways of interpreting Kant’s Formula of Universal Law (FUL), by looking at relevant similarities and differences between Pauline Kleingeld and Mark Timmons. I identify both their readings as a formal interpretation of Kant’s FUL, in contrast to the substantive interpretations that favor a robust conception of rational agency as a necessary requirement for moral deliberation. I highlight the benefits that arise from Kleingled’s interpretation in showing the immediacy involved in the volitional self-contradiction when universalizing a maxim. Alongside Timmons, I address a question as to whether Kleingeld’s interpretation is completely free from at least a minimal set of assumptions about practical deliberation more broadly, that seem to play a role in generating the volitational self-contradiction she is defending. I close by raising some skeptical worries about the capacity of this kind of contradiction to translate into a moral judgment triggering action.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Official URL: | https://www.springer.com/journal/11406 |
| Additional Information: | © 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. |
| Divisions: | Government Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method |
| Subjects: | B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > B Philosophy (General) |
| Date Deposited: | 19 Apr 2023 09:09 |
| Last Modified: | 12 Dec 2024 03:42 |
| URI: | http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/118671 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
