Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

European Science Foundation ranking A

Kant-Studien

Philosophische Zeitschrift der Kant-Gesellschaft

Ed. by Baum, Manfred / Dörflinger, Bernd / Klemme, Heiner F.

4 Issues per year

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Kant on Determining One's Duty: A Middle Course Between Rawls and Herman

Michael Rohlf1

1Washington, DC

Citation Information: Kant-Studien. Volume 100, Issue 3, Pages 346–368, ISSN (Online) 1613-1134, ISSN (Print) 0022-8877, DOI: 10.1515/KANT.2009.020, September 2009

Publication History:
Published Online:
2009-09-15

Abstract

This paper develops an interpretation of the relationship between Kant's various formulations of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork that steers a middle course between the formal and substantive poles of the interpretive spectrum, represented by John Rawls and Barbara Herman, respectively. Accepting and rejecting key aspects of both Rawls's and Herman's interpretations, I argue that the first formulation, understood correctly, does suffice to determine all Kantian moral duties, but only if duties are regarded as situation-specific rather than standing obligations. I also argue, however, that the second and third formulations provide information that is necessary for understanding and applying the first formulation to determine one's duty correctly, and that the formulations are in a sense equivalent even though each plays a distinctive and important role.

Key words:: Kant's ethics; Groundwork; categorical imperative formulations; John Rawls; Barbara Herman

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.