A Contemporary Analysis of Kant’s Concept of Goodwill and the Categorical Imperative
(1) Department of Philosophy, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria
(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26858/pdr.v1i1.13625
Abstract
This paper makes a contemporary appraisal of the concepts of the ‘Goodwill’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’ in Kant’s formalistic, deontological ethics. Kant posits that the rightness of an act does not depend at all on the value of its consequences. For him, in order to know whether an act is right or wrong, we need only see whether it is in accordance with a valid moral rule. The test for a valid moral rule, as he conceives it, is purely formalistic. For a moral rule to be valid, it must pass the test of the foundational, supreme principle or ultimate criterion of morality, which Kant calls the “Categorical Imperative”. On this score, the paper, seeks to address the problem of ethical formalism and foundationalism associated with Kant’s theory in view of the contemporary challenge of ethical pluralism and destructive postmodernism. The objective of the paper is to reconcile with Kantianism with the contemporary shift from moral foundationalism and universalism to anti-foundationalism and relativism.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Callicott, J.B. (2002). “The Case against Moral Pluralism”. In A. Light & H. Rolston III (Eds.). Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 203-219.
Cheney, J. (1989). “Postmodern Environmental Ethics: Ethics as a Bioregional Narrative”. Environmental Ethics II: 117-34
Cheney, J. (1989). “The Neo-Stoicism of Radical Environmentalism”. Environmental Ethics II: 293-325
Derrida, J. (1981). Positions, Alan Bass (trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Durant, W. (1961). The Story of Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Effiwatt, I. E. (2002). “Postmodernism”. In I.I. Asouzu (Ed.). Philosophy and Logic Today. Calabar: University of Calabar Press. 188-194.
Ferre, F. (1988). “Toward a Postmodern Science and Technology”. In D.R. Griffin (ed.). Spirituality and Society: Postmodern Visions. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Groark, L. (2011). Moral Reasoning: Rediscovering the Ethical Tradition. Ontario: Oxford University Press
Hargrove, E. (1985). “The Role of Rules in Ethical Decision making”. Inquiry 28:30
Kant, I. (1987). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans by Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis; Hackett Publishing Co
Lamprecht, S.P. (1955). Our Philosophical Traditions: A Brief History of Philosophy in Western Civilization. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Landau, R.S. (2012). The Fundamentals of Ethics (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press
Mannion, J. (2002). Essentials of Philosophy: The Basic Concepts of the World’s Greatest Thinkers. New York: Fall River Press
Okpe, T. A., & Bassey, S. A. (2018). Environmental Problems and the Question of Intergenerational Justice from the Kantian Perspective. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 373-382.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Stone, C.D. (2002). “Moral Pluralism and the Course of Environmental Ethics”. In A. Light & H. Rolston III (Eds.). Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.193-202.
Stumpf,. S.E. & Fieser J. (2003). Philosophy: History and Problems (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill
Sullivan, R.J. (1994). An Introduction to Kant’s Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, P.W. (1967). Problems of Moral Philosophy: An Introduction to Ethics. Belmont, California: Dickenson Publishing Co.
Wenz, P.S. (2002). “Minimal, Moderate, and Extreme Moral Pluralism”. In A. Light & H. Rolston III (Eds.). Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 220-228.
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 1339 times | PDF view : 129 timesRefbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Edward Uzoma Ezedike