Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that For Kant, practical irrationality, both moral and prudential, focuses mainly on our willing rather than on actions, feelings, or desires.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Kant presents rational requirements as demands on the will rather than on external acts.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.