[net.philosophy] Kant, moral and nonmoral goods, etc.

dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/24/83)

Now that Alan Wexelblat has clarified his position on the failures of Kant's
moral philosophy somewhat, let me clarify mine.  I am not defending Kant in
the sense that I am convinced that he is right; I am defending him in the
sense that I want to see Kant get his due.  I am not sure what I think about
whether Kant's moral philosophy is successful or not.  Let me just say that I
am not satisfied with the attempts of others to refute Kant on this issue.

Alan Wexelblat offers:

     Misinterpretations are a matter of opinion; if there is enough
     interest, I will prepare an article covering briefly Kant's moral
     philosophy, and its failures (at least, as I have been taught them).

I'm interested.  I recommend the book *Kant's Theory of Freedom* (sorry I
can't recall the author but I think the publisher is Academic Press), and
the article "Kant's 'Empty Formalism'" in the journal *Ethics*, 1981 or 82
(I can't remember which), for defenses of Kant's moral theory.  If you want
me to, I'll try to review those sources and report their opinions.  As for
misinterpretations, I suggest we follow the "principle of charitable
interpretation" and use whatever interpretation makes Kant the most
plausible, subject to fidelity to text.

After agreeing that he uses "moral" to refer to what concerns one's
responsibilities to others, Alan Wexelblat says:

     However, I am curious as to how you can agree [that there cannot be
     moral goods without non-moral goods] and still defend Kant.  This line
     of reasoning is one of the major attacks on his moral philosophy.

See my remarks about my defending Kant, above.  Also, I think Kant never
denied that non-moral goods (in THIS sense) are necessary for moral goods to
exist.  I think he would identify rational nature or autonomy or respect for
the moral law or some such as the ultimate good.  None of these seem to be
wholly other-regarding.  I don't think Kant would advocate what Wexelblat
called a world of "perfect altruists" (who have no regard for themselves).

--Paul Torek, U of MD College Park