Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T01:00:00.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kantian Constructivism and the Normativity of Practical Identities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2018

ÉTIENNE BROWN
ÉTIENNE BROWN*
Affiliation:
Centre de recherche en éthique (CRÉ), Université de Montréal
*
*<etienne.c.brown@gmail.com>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many neo-Aristotelians argue that practical identities are normative, that is, they provide us with reasons for action and create binding obligations. Kantian constructivists agree with this insight but argue that contemporary Aristotelians fail to fully justify it. Practical identities are normative, Kantian constructivists contend, but their normativity necessarily derives from the normativity of humanity. In this paper, I shed light on this underexplored similarity between neo-Aristotelian and Kantian constructivist accounts of the normativity of practical identities, and argue that both ultimately fail. I end by suggesting an alternative justification of the claim that practical identities are normative.

Plusieurs néo-aristotéliciens contemporains soutiennent que nos identités pratiques sont normatives, c’est-à-dire qu’elles sont une source de raisons d’agir et d’obligations contraignantes. Les constructivistes kantiens partagent ce constat, mais estiment que les aristotéliciens contemporains n’en offrent pas une justification philosophique satisfaisante. À leurs yeux, nos identités pratiques sont normatives, mais ce fait dérive nécessairement du caractère normatif d’une identité plus fondamentale : notre identité d’être humain rationnel. Cet article se propose de mettre en lumière cette similarité rarement conceptualisée entre les théories néo-aristotéliciennes et constructivistes kantiennes de la normativité des identités pratiques, puis d’en offrir une critique. Après avoir dirigé une série d’objections contre ces deux théories, j’esquisse une justification alternative du caractère normatif des identités pratiques.

Keywords

neo-AristotelianismKantian constructivismpractical identitiespractical reasonsmoral obligationstranscendental arguments
Type
Dossier : Le constructivisme métaéthique / Metaethical Constructivism
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 571 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2018 

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

Anscombe, Elizabeth 1957 Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle 2004 Nicomachean Ethics, translated and edited by Crisp, Roger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Gerald A. 1996 “Reason, Humanity and the Moral Law,” in Christine Korsgaard, The Sources of Normativity, edited by O’Neill, Onora, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descombes, Vincent 1994 Philosophie du jugement politique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Finnis, John 1980 Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Foot, Philippa 2001 Natural Goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, James 1986 Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1996 Practical Philosophy, edited and translated by Gregor, Mary J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1996 Religion and Rational Theology, translated and edited by Wood, Allen W. and Di Giovanni, George. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1998 Critique of Pure Reason, translated and edited by Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine 1996 The Sources of Normativity, edited by O’Neill, Onora, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine 2008 The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine 2009 Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity and Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair 1981 After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair 1988 Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair 1999 Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas 1996 “Universality and the Reflective Self,” in Christine Korsgaard, The Sources of Normativity, edited by O’Neill, Onora, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph 1986 The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Christopher M. 2013 “Defending the Objective List Theory of Well-Being.” Ratio 26 (2): 196–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, Sergio 2012 “The Idea of Freedom and Moral Cognition in Groundwork III,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (3): 555–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar