Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-66nw2 Total loading time: 0.348 Render date: 2021-12-02T22:08:45.215Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Kant's Theory of Conscience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2021

Samuel Kahn
Affiliation:
Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis

Summary

The main body of this Element, about Kant's theory of conscience, is divided into two sections. The first focuses on exegesis of Kant's ethics. One of the overarching theses of this section of the Element is that, although many of Kant's claims about conscience are prima facie inconsistent, a close examination of context generally can dissolve apparent contradictions. The second section of the Element focuses on philosophical issues in Kantian ethics. One of the overarching theses of this section of the Element is that many positions traditionally associated with Kantian ethics, including the denial of moral luck, the nonaccidental rightness condition, and the guise of the objectively good, are at variance with Kant's ethics.
Get access
Type
Element
Information
Online ISBN: 9781108694278
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 06 May 2021
Copyright
© Samuel Kahn 2021

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.)

References

Allison, Henry. 1990. Kant’s Theory of Freedom. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanassoulis, Nafsika. 2005. Morality, Moral Luck and Responsibility. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Marcia. 1995. Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, David I. and Geurts, Bart. 2014. “Presupposition,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/presupposition. Accessed 10.19.2020.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan. 1974. “The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn.” Philosophy, 49 (188): 123134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, Julia. 2013. “Luck and Fortune in Moral Evaluation,” in Contrastivism in Philosophy (ed. by Blaauw, Martijn). Routledge: 154172.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen. 1992. “The Concept of the Highest Good in Kant’s Moral Theory.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52: 747780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. 2005. The System of Ethics. Translated and edited by Breazeale, Daniel and Günter, Zöller. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, Jakob Friedrich. 1818. Handbuch der praktischen Philosophie. Mohr und Winter.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John. 1983. “Action from Duty but Not in Accord with Duty.” Ethics, 93 (2): 283290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, Georg Friedrich, Wilhelm. 2008. Outlines of the Philosophy of Right. Translated by Knox, T. M.. Revised, edited, and introduced by Houlgate, Stephen. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Friedrich, Wilhelm. 2018. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated and edited by Pinkard, Terry. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara. 1993. The Practice of Moral Judgment. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Samuel. 2013. “The Guise of the Objectively Good.The Journal of Value Inquiry, 47 (1–2): 8799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Samuel. 2015. “Kant’s Theory of Conscience,” in Rethinking Kant: Volume IV (ed. Muchnik, Pablo and Thorndike, Oliver). Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 135156.Google Scholar
Kahn, Samuel. 2018. “Kant’s Post-1800 Disavowal of the Highest Good Argument for the Existence of God.” Kant Yearbook, 10 (1): 6383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Samuel. 2019a. “The Problem of the Kantian Line.International Philosophical Quarterly, 59 (2/234): 193217. DOI: 10.5840/ipq2019311128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Samuel. 2019b. Kant, Ought Implies Can, the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, and Happiness. Lexington Press.Google Scholar
Kazim, Emre. 2017. Kant on Conscience. Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerstein, Samuel. 2002. Kant’s Search for the Supreme Principle of Morality. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996a. Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996b. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 2004. “Fellow Creatures.” Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 24: 77110.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 2011. “Interacting with Animals,” in The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics (ed. by Beauchamp, Tom and Frey), R. G.. Oxford University Press: 91118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 2013. “Kantian Ethics, Animals, and the Law.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 33 (4): 629648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, Dana K. 2013. “Moral Luck,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/moral-luck.Google Scholar
Paton, H. J. 1979. “Conscience and Kant.” Kant Studien, 70: 239251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 2008. “On the Guise of the Good,” University of Oxford Legal Research Paper Series, Paper No. 43/2008. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1099838 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1099838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Keshav. 2020. “Moral Worth, Credit, and Non-Accidentality.” In Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics Volume 10 (ed. by Mark Timmons), Oxford University Press: 156–181.Google Scholar
Statman, Daniel. 1993. “Introduction,” in Moral Luck (ed. by Statman, Daniel). State University of New York Press: 1-34.Google Scholar
Sverdlik, Steven. 2001. “Kant, Nonaccidentalness and the Availability of Moral Worth.” The Journal of Ethics, 5 (4): 293313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen. 1990. Hegel’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen. 1999. Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen. 2008. Kantian Ethics. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Send element to Kindle

To send this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Kant's Theory of Conscience
  • Samuel Kahn, Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis
  • Online ISBN: 9781108694278
Available formats
×

Send element to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Kant's Theory of Conscience
  • Samuel Kahn, Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis
  • Online ISBN: 9781108694278
Available formats
×

Send element to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Kant's Theory of Conscience
  • Samuel Kahn, Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis
  • Online ISBN: 9781108694278
Available formats
×