Any 'plausible version' of Kantianism that systematically converges with optimific principles abandons the categorical structure that distinguishes it from consequentialism, as Scheffler's hybrid theories illustrate by requiring supplementary constraints.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Categorical structure(as what makes Kantianism distinct): In Kant's ethics, the idea that moral rules are absolute and binding on everyone, no matter what the results might be—you shouldn't break them even if breaking them would lead to better outcomes.
Hybrid theories(as Scheffler's contribution to philosophy): Ethical approaches that blend two or more different moral frameworks together rather than sticking strictly to one.
Kantianism(as the main ethical theory being discussed): A philosophical approach based on the ideas of Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century philosopher who argued that morality comes from universal rules and duties we owe to all people, rather than from what produces the best outcomes.
Scheffler, Samuel(as an example of someone trying to blend these approaches): A contemporary moral philosopher known for creating 'hybrid' ethical theories that try to combine the best features of both Kantian ethics (with its absolute rules) and consequentialism (with its focus on good outcomes).

Based on where you are in your exploration