Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T16:57:27.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Ethics

Kant's Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2022

Kate A. Moran
Kate A. Moran
Affiliation:
Brandeis University, Massachusetts

Summary

The Element provides an overview of Immanuel Kant's arguments regarding the content of the moral law (the categorical imperative), as well as an exposition of his arguments for the bindingness of the moral law for rational agents. The Element also considers common objections to Kant's ethics.
Get access

Keywords

Immanuel Kantcategorical imperativemoral lawautonomyethics
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Ethics
Online ISBN: 9781108754637
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 10 March 2022

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

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

Allison, H. (1990). Kant’s Theory of Freedom. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. (1996). On the Presumed Gap in the Derivation of the Imperative, Categorical. In Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant’s Theoretical and Practical Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, H. (2011). Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aune, B. (1980). Kant’s Theory of Morals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, M. (1984). The Alleged Moral Repugnance of Acting from Duty. Journal of Philosophy 81(4): 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, M. (1995). Kantian Ethics (Almost) without Apology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, M. (2008). Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics, and the “One Thought Too Many” Objection. In Betzler, M. (ed.), Kant’s Ethics of Virtues. Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Baxley, A. (2010). Kant’s Theory of Virtue: The Value of Autocracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dean, R. (2006). The Value of Humanity in Kant’s Moral Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, S. (1992). The Concept of the Highest Good in Kant’s Moral Theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 747–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formosa, P. and Sticker, M. (2019). Kant and the Demandingness of the Duty of Beneficence. European Journal of Philosophy 27: 625–642.Google Scholar
Gaut, B. and Kerstein, S. (1999). The Derivation without the Gap: Rethinking Groundwork I. Kantian Review 3: 18–40.Google Scholar
Glasgow, J. (2003). Expanding the Limits of Universalization. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 33: 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (1993). Kant and the Experience of Freedom: Essays on Aesthetics and Morality. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (1998). The Value of Reason and the Value of Freedom. Ethics 109: 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (2002). Ends of Reason and Ends of Nature: The Place of Teleology in Kant’s Ethics. Journal of Value Inquiry 36: 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (2007). Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Reader’s Guide. New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, P. (2019). Kant on the Rationality of Morality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1803/1975). On the Scientific Ways of Treating Natural Law. Trans. T. M. Knox. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1821/1991). Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Trans. H. B. Nisbet, Ed. Wood, A.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, B. (1993). The Practice of Moral Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, T. (1973). The Hypothetical Imperative. Philosophical Review 82: 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, T. (1992). Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant’s Moral Theory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kain, P. (2010) Duties Regarding Animals. In Denis, L. (ed.) Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, P. (1995). What Do the Virtuous Hope For? Re-Reading Kant’s Doctrine of the Highest Good. In Robinson, H. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, P. (2010). Moral Consciousness and the “Fact of Reason.” In Reath, A. and Timmermann, J. (eds.), Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, P. and Willaschek, M. (2019). Autonomy without Paradox: Kant, Self-Legislation, and the Moral Law. Philosopher’s Imprint 19(6): 1–18.Google Scholar
Kohl, M. (2018). Kant’s Critique of Instrumental Reason. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 99: 489–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, K. (1996). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, K. (2018). Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langton, R. (1992). Duty and Desolation. Philosophy 67: 481–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, J. (2003). Kant on Lies, Candour, and Reticence. Kantian Review 7: 102–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, J. (2009). The Truth About Kant on Lies. In Martin, C. (ed.), The Philosophy of Deception. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, A. (2006). How to Argue for the Value of Humanity. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87: 96–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1867). Utilitarianism. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. (1975). Acting on Principle. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Papish, L. (2018). Kant’s Revised Account of the Non-Moral Imperatives of Practical Reason. Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 5: 289–317.Google Scholar
Paton, H. J. (1971). The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Pistorius, H. A. (1786). Rezension der Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In Bittner, R. and Cramer, K. (eds.), Materialien zu Kants Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Prichard, H. (1912). Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake? Mind 21: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1980). Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory. Journal of Philosophy 77(9): 515–572.Google Scholar
Reath, A. (1988). Two Conceptions of the Highest Good in Kant. Journal of the History of Philosophy 26: 593–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinholt, K. L. (1792/2005). Letters on the Kantian Philosophy. Trans. J. Hebbeler, Ed. Ameriks, K.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, M. (2005). The Hypothetical Imperative? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83: 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, H. (1874). The Methods of Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Sticker, M. (2019). A Funeral March for Those Drowning in Shallow Ponds? Imperfect Duties and Emergencies. Kant-Studien 110: 236–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocker, M. (1976). The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories. The Journal of Philosophy 73(14): 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stohr, K. (2011). Kantian Beneficence and the Problem of Obligatory Aid. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8: 45–67.Google Scholar
Timmermann, J. (2005). When the Tail Wags the Dog: Animal Welfare and Indirect Duty in Kantian Ethics. Kantian Review 10: 128–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, J. (2006). Value without Regress: Kant’s “Formula of Humanity” Revisited. European Journal of Philosophy 14: 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, J. (2007). Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, J. (2010). Reversal or Retreat? Kant’s Deductions of Freedom and Morality. In Reath, A. and Timmermann, J. (eds.), Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Timmermann, J. (2018a). Autonomy, Progress, and Virtue: Why Kant Has Nothing to Fear from the Demandingness Objection. Kantian Review 23: 379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, J. (2018b). Emerging Autonomy: Dealing with the Inadequacies of the Canon of the Critique of Pure Reason. In Bacin, S. and Sensen, O. (eds.), The Emergence of Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tittel, G. A. (1786). Über Herrn Kants Moralreform. Frankfurt/Leipzig: Pfähler.Google Scholar
Uleman, J. (2010). An Introduction to Kant’s Moral Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uleman, J. (2016). No King and No Torture: Kant on Suicide and Law. Kantian Review 21: 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varden, H. (2020). Kant and Moral Responsibility for Animals. In Allais, L. and Callanan, J. (eds.), Kant on Animals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. D. (1999). Love as a Moral Emotion. Ethics 109: 338–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, O. (2017). Kant’s Deductions of Morality and Freedom. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47: 116–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. (1973). A Critique of Utilitarianism. In Smart, J. J. C. and Williams, B. (eds.), Utilitarianism: For and against. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, B. (1981). Persons, Character, and Morality. In Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973–1980. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A. (1999). Kant’s Ethical Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A. (2013). Kant on Practical Reason. In Timmons, M. and Baiasu, S. (eds.), Kant on Practical Justification: Interpretative Essays. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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 Ethics
  • Kate A. Moran, Brandeis University, Massachusetts
  • Online ISBN: 9781108754637
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save 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 saving content to Dropbox.

Kant's Ethics
  • Kate A. Moran, Brandeis University, Massachusetts
  • Online ISBN: 9781108754637
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save 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 saving content to Google Drive.

Kant's Ethics
  • Kate A. Moran, Brandeis University, Massachusetts
  • Online ISBN: 9781108754637
Available formats
×