Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-trf7k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-10T13:13:10.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Contractualist Reading of Kant's Proof of the Formula of Humanity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2013

Adam Cureton
Adam Cureton*
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee Email: adamcureton@utk.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kant offers the following argument for the formula of humanity (FH): Each rational agent necessarily conceives of her own rational nature as an end in itself and does so on the same grounds as every other rational agent, so all rational agents must conceive of one another's rational nature as an end in itself. As it stands, the argument appears to be question-begging and fallacious. Drawing on resources from the formula of universal law (FUL) and Kant's claims about the primacy of duties to oneself, I propose a contractualist reconstruction of this puzzling line of reasoning.

Keywords

Formula of humanitydignityrespectself-respectcontractualismduties to oneselfformula of universal law

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , November 2013 , pp. 363 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arroyo, C. (2011) ‘Freedom and the Source of Value: Korsgaard and Wood on Kant's Formula of Humanity’. Metaphilosophy, 42, 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruton, S. V. (2000) ‘Establishing Kant's Formula of Humanity’. Southwest Philosophy Review, 16, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cureton, A. (2013) ‘From Self-Respect to Respect for Others’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94, 166–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, R. (2006) The Value of Humanity in Kant's Moral Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, L. (1997) ‘Kant's Ethics and Duties to Oneself’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 78, 321–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, L. (2007) ‘Kant's Formula of the End in Itself: Some Recent Debates’. Philosophy Compass, 2, 244–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donagan, A. (1977) The Theory of Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, S. (2009) The Form of Practical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (1995) ‘The Possibility of the Categorical Imperative’. Philosophical Review, 104, 353–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (2000) Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haezrahi, P. (1962) ‘The Concept of Man as End-in-Himself’. Kant-Studien, 53, 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, B. (1993) The Practice of Moral Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, T. E. (1992) ‘Humanity as an End in Itself’. In T. E. Hill (ed.), Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant's Moral Theory (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), 38–57.Google Scholar
Hill, T. E. (2000) ‘Donagan's Kant’. In T. E. Hill (ed.), Respect, Pluralism, and Justice: Kantian Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, T. E. (2002a) ‘Editor's Introduction’. In I. Kant, T. E. Hill and A. Zweig (ed.), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press), 19–91.Google Scholar
Hill, T. E. (2002b) ‘Hypothetical Consent in Kantian Constructivism’. In Human Welfare and Moral Worth (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 61–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, T. E. (2003) ‘Treating Criminals as Ends in Themselves’. Annual Review of Law and Ethics, 11, 17–36.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1996) The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. J. Gregor. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (2001a) ‘Kant on the Metaphysics of Morals: Vigilantius's Lecture Notes’. In P. L. Heath and J. B. Schneewind (ed.), Lectures on Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 249–452.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2001b) ‘Moral Philosophy: Collins's Lecture Notes’. In P. L. Heath and J. B. Schneewind (ed.), Lectures on Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 37–222.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2002) Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. T. E. Hill and A. Zweig. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2007) Critique of Practical Reason, trans. M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerstein, S. (2002) Kant's Search for the Supreme Principle of Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerstein, S. (2009) ‘Treating Others Merely as Means’. Utilitas, 21, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996a) ‘Kant's Formula of Humanity’. In C. M. Korsgaard (ed.), Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 106–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996b) ‘Kant's Formula of Universal Law’. In C. M. Korsgaard (ed.), Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. (2006) ‘How to Argue for the Value of Humanity’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 87, 96–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. (2003) Utilitarianism and on Liberty, ed. M. Warnock. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1978) The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
O'Neill, O. (1975) Acting on Principle. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
O'Neill, O. (1990a) ‘Between Consenting Adults’. In Constructions of Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, O. (1990b) ‘Consistency in Action’. In Constructions of Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, O. (1990c) ‘Universal Laws and End-in-Themselves’. In Constructions of Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D. (1984) Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paton, H. J. (1948) The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. (1987) ‘Universality without Utilitarianism’. Mind, 72, 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, T. (1998) ‘The Categorical Imperative’. In P. Guyer (ed.), Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield), 189–213.Google Scholar
Potter, N. (2002) ‘Duties to Oneself, Motivational Internalism, and Self-Deception in Kant's Ethics’. In M. Timmons (ed.), Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 371–390.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (2000) Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, ed. B. Herman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (2007) Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy, ed. S. R. Freeman. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reath, A. (1998) ‘Self-Legislation and Duties to Oneself’. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 36, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre-McCord, G. (2001) ‘Mill's “Proof” of the Principle of Utility: A More Than Half-Hearted Defense’. Social Philosophy and Policy, 18, 330–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneewind, J. B. (1998) ‘Korsgaard and the Unconditional in Morality’. Ethics, 109, 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sensen, O. (2009) ‘Kant's Conception of Human Dignity’. Kant-Studien, 100, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, J. (2006a) ‘Kantian Duties to the Self, Explained and Defended’. Philosophy, 81, 505–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, J. (2006b) ‘Value without Regress: Kant's “Formula of Humanity” Revisited’. European Journal of Philosophy, 14, 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A. W. (1999) Kant's Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A. W. (2008) Kantian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar