[lit-ideas] Re: Do You Have a Moral Urgency?
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:24:51 -0230
Quoting Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
snip
> Tying this into another thread, the fact that the consequences of moral
> actions matter was always a problem for Kant. He offered two
> incompatible paths for resolving the problem, either ignore consequences
> or hold that there is an Ultimate Lawgiver who ensures that it all works
> out, but I don't think he found either satisfactory.
>
I'm not clear on why it is so often claimed that K had a problem with
consequences. Action in accord with moral law for its own sake identifies the
moral worth of a maxim independently of consequences. We typically have no
control over consequences.
Re "Ultimate Lawgiver": I think K. believed the latter disjunct is ultimately a
copout - permissible as part of one's conception of the good if you need it,
but not a sign of rational autonomy or moral good (right) qua
self-legislation.
Almost on holidays,
Walter Okshevsky
Memorial U.
> Sincerely,
>
> Phil Enns
> Toronto, ON
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
