Moralism and Its Discontents

2022

This book examines the significance of Kant’s moral philosophy in contemporary philosophical debates. It argues that Kant’s philosophy can still serve as a guide to navigate the turbulence of a globalized world in which we are faced by an imprescriptible social reality wherein moral values and ethical life models are becoming increasingly unstable. The volume draws on Kantian ethics to discuss various contemporary issues, including sustainable development, moral enhancement, sexism, and racism. It also tackles general concepts of practical philosophy such as lying, the different kinds of moral duties, and the kind of motivation one needs for doing what we consider the right thing. Featuring readings by well-known Kant specialists and emerging scholars with unorthodox approaches to Kant’s philosophy, the volume will be of great interest to scholars and researchers of philosophy, politics and ethics. It will also appeal to moral theorists, applied ethicists and environmental theorists.

My dissertation has three main parts. In the first I develop a commitment model of moral judgment. I argue that moral judgments and the broader discourse in which they take place can be understood in terms of the operation of distinct but interacting commitment strategies. To a first approximation, these strategies operate at the levels of individual and social psychology, and biological and/or cultural evolution. All commitment strategies provide motivational stability by reducing one’s (perceived) flexibility of action. Some such strategies are undertaken deliberately, such as when an addict signs a contract forcing her to donate money to a despised organization if she is caught using. However, the commitment strategies associated with moral judgments are rarely if ever conscious or deliberate. In fact, a central aspect of my commitment model holds that the peculiar motivational power of moral judgments is importantly connected to their power to deflect attention away from our actual motivations and values, and that this motivational strategy is undermined by an awareness of its workings. A primary goal of the first part is to explain (away) belief in intrinsic (nonrelational) value and practical reasons that are metaphysically independent of any person’s actual concerns. The second part is the third chapter and provides a positive defense of a neo-Humean view of practical rationality according to which all practical reasons and values are relative to some actual concern(s). I defend this view against rationalist (anti-Humean) objections, and then disgnose a common source of confusion among some of the most prominent rationalist conceptions of practical reason, namely their reliance on an untenable near-identification of willpower with rationality. A particular strength of my account is that it naturally explains how this highly problematic claim could seem so obviously correct as not to require any real defense. The final three chapters argue that moral discourse, due to its systematic deflection of attention from our motives, threatens to commit us in ways that are both radically at odds with our actual concerns and that motivate self-deception. As part of an an effort to better promote our (highest) values, I favor investigating and evaluating our actual values rather than our ostensible moral obligations.

Philosophical Books, 2008

Ratio

Moralism is often described as a vice. But what exactly is wrong with moralism that makes it aptly described as a character flaw? This paper will argue that the problem with moralism is that it downgrades the force of legitimate moral criticism. The first section will argue that moralism involves an inflated sense of the extent to which moral criticism is appropriate. The second section will examine the value of legitimate moral criticism, arguing that its value stems from enabling us to take a stand against immoral behavior. The third section will argue that unwarranted moral criticism downgrades the force of legitimate moral criticism and that this is why moralism should be seen as a vice.

Journal of Moral Philosophy, 2013

Kantian Review, 2002

Rousseau and Kant) that have informed liberal politics, and the other, if not greater, darkness, in the form of religiously inspired violence,. against which liberalism has also historically struggled. In slighting that nobler, if partly mistaken, motive, Tuck's otherwise incisive study fails to do liberalism full justice.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the various frameworks of the most prominent Western political philosophers is their approach to morality. Immanuel Kant's and Friedrich Nietzsche's approaches to the concept appear to be the most noteworthy since they present two distinct and opposing perspectives on it. While Nietzsche's vision argues for the existence of a corrupt and obstacle version of morality that he criticizes for employing an approach that heavily emphasizes the existence of individual will, Kant's perspective seems to favor one arguably affirmative approach that supports the idea that there exists a universal morality, which he establishes upon rationality. This raises the question of how Nietzsche's critique of conventional morality, which essentially emphasizes individualism and criticizes "slave morality," differs from Kant's conception of a universal morality based on rationality and a shared sense of duty. The dilemma raised by this contrast, which constitutes the main point that this paper aspires to address, is whether moral values—as claimed by Nietzsche—are a result of individual will to power, power dynamics, and cultural environment or are they based on universal, rational principles, as Kant contends.

Kant argues that “all politics must bend its knee before right” (PP: 8:380), and this means that “right must never be accommodated to politics, but politics must always be accommodated to right” (SRL: 8:429). Kant’s uncompromising stance on the relation of morals to politics has often been branded unrealistic and impractical. Indeed, it has often been argued that putting Kantian morality into political practice would, according to Alasdair MacIntyre, amount to “a dereliction of political duty”. While justice (and morality) can afford to be blind, politics must keep its eyes wide open. Does this accusation of naïve impracticality against Kant stand up to criticism? With these difficulties in mind, this paper will address the question of the relation of morals to politics in Kant’s work by first offering an interpretation of Kant’s moral and political theory. In section two I reject those readings of Kant, which are not uncommon, that claim that his moral theory absolutely forbids lying under any circumstances. In section three I also reject those readings of Kant, which again are not uncommon, that claim that his political theory absolutely forbids civil disobedience and rebellion under any circumstances. Drawing upon this reconstructive exegesis, I argue in section four that Kant’s position on the relation of morals to politics is both morally uncompromising and yet politically flexible, both principled and practical. Further, I also examine in depth the claim that political progress is impossible without accompanying moral progress. A fully politicised public realm requires not only a rights-respecting but also a virtuous citizenry.

This paper challenges the standard view that Kant ignored the role of prudence in moral life by arguing that there are two notions of prudence at work in his moral and political thought. First, prudence is ordinarily understood as a technical imperative of skill that consists in reasoning about the means to achieve a particular conditional end. Second, prudence functions as a secondary form of practical thought that plays a significant role in the development of applied moral and political judgment. The political judgment of citizens and politicians is prudence regulatively guided by right and virtue. As informed by regulative ideas, prudential judgment negotiates the demands of these ideas in relation to the cultural, political, and social realities of a particular form of life. This sense of prudence is empirically informed and involves a context-sensitive application of morality as well as conceptions of individual and general welfare.