Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-5q6g5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-07T13:03:30.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Are the Different Formulas of the Categorical Imperative Related?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2015

Ido Geiger
Ido Geiger*
Affiliation:
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; Humboldt Universität zu Berlin
*
Email: geigeri@bgu.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article defends three claims regarding the relation between the different formulas of the categorical imperative. (1) On its prevailing reading, FUL gives different moral guidance than FH; left answered, this problem is an argument for adopting a competing perspective on FUL. (2) The prohibitions and commands of the formulas should be taken to be extensionally the same; but FKE adds a dimension missing from the others, gained by uniting their perspectives, namely, bringing the variety of moral laws into systematic unity. (3) The grammatically ambiguous phrase in GMS, 4: 436.9–10 claims that FA alone unites the other formulas in itself.

Keywords

formula of universal lawformula of humanityformula of the kingdom of endsequivalence of the formulas of the categorical imperativesystem of moral lawscomplete determinationlove and respectmoral knowledgemoral guidance

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 395 - 419
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2015 

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

Allison, Henry E. (2011) Kant’s ‘Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals’: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwell, John E. (1969) ‘‘Are Kant’s First Two Moral Principles Equivalent?’’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 7, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Julius (1988) ‘Die Formeln des kategorischen Imperativs und die Ableitung inhaltlich bestimmter Pflichten’. In Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 2, Praktische Philosophie 1955–1972 (Bonn: Bouvier Verlag), pp. 209–229.Google Scholar
Ebert, Theodor (1976) ‘Kants kategorischer Imperativ und die Kriterien gebotener, verbotener und freigestellter Handlungen’. Kant-Studien, 67, 570–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen (2009) The Form of Practical Knowledge: A Study of the Categorical Imperative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, Ido (2010) ‘What is the Use of the Universal Law Formula of the Categorical Imperative?’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 18, 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, Ido (2011) ‘Rational Feelings and Moral Agency’. Kantian Review, 16, 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, Ido (2015) ‘How Do We Acquire Moral Knowledge? Is Knowing Our Duty Ever Passive? – Two Questions for Martin Sticker’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 23.Google Scholar
Geismann, Georg (2002) ‘Die Formeln des kategorischen Imperativs nach H. J. Paton, N.N., Klaus Reich und Julius Ebbinghaus’. Kant-Studien, 93, 374–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, Barbara (1993a) ‘The Practice of Moral Judgment’. In The Practice of Moral Judgment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 73–93.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara (1993b) ‘Murder and Mayhem’. In The Practice of Moral Judgment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 113–131.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara (1993c) ‘Moral Deliberation and the Derivation of Duties’. In The Practice of Moral Judgment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 132–158.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried (1977) ‘Kants kategorischer Imperativ als Kriterium des Sittlichen’. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 31, 354–384.Google Scholar
Illies, Christian F. R. (2007) ‘Orientierung durch Universalisierung: Der kategorische Imperativ als Test für die Moralität von Maximen’. Kant-Studien, 98, 306–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996a) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and The Metaphysics of Morals. In Mary Gregor (trans. and ed.), Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996b) Lectures on the Philosophical Doctrine of Religion. Trans. Allen W. Wood. In Allen W. Wood and George di Giovanni (trans. and eds.), Religion and Rational Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1997) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. and ed. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2000) Critique of Power of Judgment. Ed. Paul Guyer, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Patricia (2004) ‘Kant’s Argument for the Categorical Imperative’. Noûs, 38, 555–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M (1996a) ‘Kant’s Formula of Universal Law’. In Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M (1996b) ‘Kant’s Formula of Humanity’. In Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 106–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M (1996c) ‘Creating the Kingdom of Ends: Reciprocity and Responsibility in Personal Relations’. In Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 188–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M (1996d) ‘The Reasons We Can Share: An Attack on the Distinction between Agent-Relative and Agent-Neutral Values’. In Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 275–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausser, Peter (1968) ‘Über eine Unvermerkte Doppelrolle des Kategorischen Imperativs in Kants Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten’. Kant-Studien, 59, 318–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nell (O’Neill), Onora (1975) Acting on Principle: An Essay on Kantian Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Nisters, Thomas (1993) Kants kategorischer Imperativ als Leitfaden humaner Praxis. Freiburg: Verlag Karl Alber.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora (1989a) ‘Consistency in Action’. In Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 81–104.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora (1989b) ‘Between Consenting Adults’. In Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 105–125.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora (1989c) ‘Universal Laws and Ends-In-Themselves’. In Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 126–144.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora (1991) ‘Kantian Ethics’. In Peter Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers), pp. 175–185.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora (2004) ‘Kant: Rationality as Practical Reason’. In Alfred R. Mele and Piers Rawling (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Rationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 93–109.Google Scholar
Paton, H. J. (1964) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (2000) Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reich, Klaus (2001) ‘Kant und die Ethik der Griechen’. In Manfred Baum, Udo Rameil, Klaus Reisinger and Gertrud Scholz (eds.), Gesammelte Schriften (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag), pp. 113–146.Google Scholar
Rohlf, Michael (2009) ‘Kant on Determining One’s Duties: A Middle Course between Rawls and Herman’. Kant-Studien, 100, 346–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedgwick, Sally (2008) Kant’s ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sticker, Martin (2015) ‘The Moral-Psychology of the Common Agent - A Reply to Ido Geiger’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 23 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Timmons, Mark (2006) ‘The Categorical Imperative and Universalizability (GMS II 421–424)’. In Christoph Horn and Dieter Schönecker (eds.), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 158–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W (1999) Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W (2008) Kantian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar