Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    For Kant, practical irrationality, both moral and prudent... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    For Kant, practical irrationality, both moral and prudential, focuses mainly on our willing rather than on actions, feelings, or desires.

    Moral ResponsibilityVirtue Ethics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Kant presents rational requirements as demands on the will rather than on external acts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.While other moral views may focus on actions, feelings, or desires, Kant's framework locates rational requirements in the will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's Formula of Universal Law tests maxims—propositional descriptions of actions—not bare acts of willing, making actions central to moral evaluation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Groundwork's categorical imperative procedure cannot function without referencing the action-type embedded in the maxim, not merely the agent's willing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's account of moral worth in the Groundwork explicitly requires that duty-motivated action produce the right external deed, not merely a correct internal volition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Christine Korsgaard and Barbara Herman both argue that Kant's ethics is irreducibly action-guiding, meaning the will's rationality is only assessable through its action-determining outputs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityVirtue Ethics

    Related

    Christine Korsgaard and Barbara Herman both argue that Kant's ethics is irreduci...Kant presents rational requirements as demands on the will rather than on extern...Kant's Formula of Universal Law tests maxims—propositional descriptions of actio...Kant's account of moral worth in the Groundwork explicitly requires that duty-mo...
    +2 moreShow less
    The Groundwork's categorical imperative procedure cannot function without refere...While other moral views may focus on actions, feelings, or desires, Kant's frame...

    Similar

    Morality is grounded in pure practical reason, and moral actions are b...81%Our conception of practical rationality must fit within our overall co...81%There is no middle ground between being ATC rational and ATC irrationa...80%The principles of practical rationality are constitutive of rational a...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    Since Kant presents moral and prudential rational requirements as first and foremost demands on our wills rather than on external acts, moral and prudential evaluation is first and foremost an evaluation of the will our actions express. Thus, it is not an error of rationality to fail to take the necessary means to one’s (willed) ends, nor to fail to want to take the means; one only falls foul of non-moral practical reason if one fails to will the means. Likewise, while actions, feelings or desir
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit