Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T02:18:10.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Logical Form and Ethical Content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

Songsuk Susan Hahn
Songsuk Susan Hahn*
Affiliation:
Université Concordia, Montréal, songsukhahn@yahoo.com
Get access

Abstract

Hegel's empty formalism charge is taken, virtually without exception, as a serious objection to Kant's categorical imperative and a powerful refutation of his formalist ethics. The dominant interpretation is represented by Bradley, Paton, Mill, Korsgaard, Guyer, Wood, Schneewind, Sedgwick, more recently, Freyenhagen, and others. So far, the dominant interpretation has remained powerfully influential and virtually unchallenged.

However, the dominant interpretation tends to take Hegel's empty formalism in isolation from other texts in the corpus, his holistic system, and dialectical method in general. What makes this non-contextualised approach problematic is that it ignores his remarks on formalism in other texts where his use of dialectical and sceptical method is more in evidence. Hegel's emptiness remarks span his entire career, from their appearance in Jena right up to the end of his career in Berlin. In Jena, his views on formal thinking in a logical sense developed alongside his views on formalism in ethics. Prima facie, the arguments bring together two subject matters that seem to have nothing to do with one another. This may explain why no one has given an interpretation that brings the two domains together. But it is worth noting that Kant himself brings logical considerations to bear on his conception of the moral principle. His distinction between the form of a moral principle and its empirical content recalls his characterisation of logical laws in the first Critique (B77-B78/A53-A54).

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 32 , Special Issue 1-2: Special Issue on Kant and Hegel , 2011 , pp. 143 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2011

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: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry (1996), Idealism and Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameriks, Karl (1987), ‘The Hegelian Critique of Kantian Morality’ in den Ouden, Bernard and Moen, Marcia (eds.), New Essays on Kant. New York: P. Lang.Google Scholar
Bradley, F. H. [1876] (1927). Ethical Studies, 2nd revised edition. 1962. ‘Duty for Duty's Sake,’ Essay IV. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beiser, Fred (1986), The Fate of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2000), ‘Absolute Idealism and the Rejection of Kantian Dualism’ in Cambridge Companion to German Idealism, Ameriks, Karl (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul (1993), ‘Thought and Being: Hegel's Critique of Kant’ in Beiser, Frederick (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. [1786], Gottlob August Titel's Über Herr Kants Moralreform. Frankfurt: Pfahler, 1786: 14–15, 32–36.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. [1798–1799] (1948), ‘The Spirit of Christianity and its Fate’ in Early Theological Writings, trans. Knox, T. M.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. [1801] (1977), The Difference between Fichte and Schelling's System of Philosophy, trans. Harris, H.S. and Cerf, Walter. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. [1802–1803] (1975a), ‘The Scientific Ways of Treating Natural Law. Its Place in Moral Philosophy and its Relation to the Positive Sciences of Law’, trans. Knox, T. M.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. [1802–1803] (1977), Faith and Knowledge, trans. Cerf, Walter and Harris, H.S.. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. [1807] (1977), The Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. Miller, A. V.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. [1812–1814] (1969), Science of Logic, trans. Miller, A. V.. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. [1817] (1991), Encyclopedia. Part I: Logic. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. [1817] (1971), Encyclopedia. Part III: Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. [1821–1822] (1991), Philosophy of Right Lectures, ed. Wood, Allen and trans. Nisbet, H. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heidemann, Dietmar H. (2011), ‘Hegel on Scepticism’ in Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 62 (2011):80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyenhagen, Fabian (2011), ‘Empty, Useless, and Dangerous? Recent Kantian Replies to the Empty Formalism Objection’ in Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 62 (2011):163–186.10.1017/S0263523200000215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, Michael N. (1989), Hegel and Scepticism. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, Michael N. (1993), ‘Hegel's Dialectical Method’ in The Cambridge Companion to Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hahn, Songsuk Susan (2007), Contradiction in Motion: Hegel's Organic Concept of Life and Value. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, Barbara (1993), The Practice of Moral Judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Thomas (1985), ‘Kant's Argument for the Rationality of Moral Conduct’ in Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. [1785] (1998), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Gregor, Mary, with an introduction by Christine Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. [1797] (1996), Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Gregor, Mary. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. [1800] (1974), Logic, trans. Hartman, R. S. and Schwarz, W.. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine (1996), Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine (1985), ‘Kant's Formula of Universal Law’ in Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66: 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hagen, Tom (1987), ‘On Hegel's Critique of Kant's Moral and Political Philosophy’ in Priest, Stephen (ed.), Hegel's Critique of Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 135–159.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart [1861] (1979), Utilitarianism, 2nd edn., ed. Sher, George. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Norman, Richard (1983), The Moral Philosophers: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Norman, Richard (1976), Hegel's Phenomenology: A Philosophical Introduction. NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Paton, H. J. (1947), The Categorical Imperative. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, Sally (1988), ‘On the Relation of Pure Reason to Content: A Reply to Hegel's Critique of Formalism in Kant's Ethics’ in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, XLIX: 1: 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Marcus (1961), Generalization in Ethics. New York: Alfred Knoff.Google Scholar
Tittel, Gottlob August [1786], Über Herr Kants Moralreform. Frankfurt: Pfahler, pp. 1–93, especially, pp. 14–15, pp. 32–36.Google Scholar
Walsh, W. H. (1969), Hegelian Ethics. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-00489-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen (1989), ‘The Emptiness of the Moral Will’ in Monist 72:454–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen (1990), Hegel's Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar