Browsing by Subject "Kant"

Now showing 1 - 10 of 12
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Can Positive Duties be Derived from Kant's Formula of Universal Law
    (2014-03) Kahn, Samuel
    According to the standard reading of Kant's formula of universal law (FUL), positive duties can be derived from FUL. In this article, I argue that the standard reading does not work. In the first section, I articulate FUL and what I mean by a positive duty. In the second section, I set out an intuitive version of the standard reading of FUL and argue that it does not work. In the third section, I set out a more rigorous version of the standard reading of FUL and argue that even this more rigorous version does not work.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Defending Kant’s conception of matter from the charge of circularity
    (De Gruyter, 2017-06) Kahn, Samuel; Philosophy, School of Liberal Arts
    In the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (MFNS) Kant develops a conception of matter that is meant to issue in an alternative to what he takes to be the then reigning empiricist account of density. However, in recent years commentator after commentator has argued that Kant’s attempt on this front is faced with insuperable difficulties. Indeed, even Kant seems to have thought that his theory of density is circular, and some of these commentators argue that this is, at least in part, what spurred Kant on to develop the theory of matter found in the Opus Postumum. Against this growing tide (and even, it seems, against Kant himself) I defend Kant’s theory of density. I shall not take a stand on whether the circularity problem played a role in the development of the Opus Postumum theory of matter – my point is simply that if the circularity problem was the sole trigger for that move, then the move was unwarranted.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Embryo Adoption: Implications of Personhood, Marriage, and Parenthood
    (2008-04-14T12:30:19Z) McMillen, Brooke Marie; Brand, Peggy Zeglin; Eberl, Jason T.; Burke, Michael B.
    One’s personal claims regarding personhood will influence his moral belief regarding embryo adoption. In Chapter One, I consider the personhood of the human embryo. If the human embryo is a person, we are morally obligated to permit the practice of embryo adoption as an ethical means to save human persons. However, for those who do not claim that an embryo is a person at conception, embryo adoption is not a necessary practice because we have no moral obligation to protect them. There are still others who claim that personhood is gained at some point during gestation when certain mental capacities develop. I offer my own claim that consciousness and sentience as well as the potential to be self-conscious mark the beginning of personhood. Embryo adoption raises several questions surrounding the institution of marriage. Due to its untraditional method of procreation, embryo adoption calls into question the role of procreation within marriage. In Chapter Two, I explore the nature of the marriage relationship by offering Lisa Cahill’s definition of marriage which involves both a spiritual and physical dimension, and then I describe the concept of marriage from different perspectives including a social, religious, and a personal perspective. From a personal perspective, I explore the relationship between marriage and friendship. Finally, I describe how the concept of marriage is understood today and explore the advantages to being married as opposed to the advantages of being single. Embryo adoption changes the way we customarily think about procreation within a family because in embryo adoption, couples are seeking an embryo from another union to be implanted into the woman. This prompts some philosophers to argue that embryo adoption violates the marriage relationship. In Chapter Three, I further consider the impact of embryo adoption on the family as an extension of the marital relationship as well as the impact of embryo adoption on the traditional roles of motherhood and fatherhood. I examine motherhood by looking at how some philosophers define motherhood and when these philosophers claim a woman becomes a mother. After considering these issues regarding motherhood, I examine the same issues surrounding fatherhood. Peg Brand, PhD., Chair
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Guise of the Objectively Good
    (Springer., 2013-06) Kahn, Samuel
    According to one influential version of the derivation of Kant’s Formula of Humanity, agents necessarily represent their ends as objectively good. In this paper I argue that there is good reason to think that this is false, that it is not the case that agents necessarily represent their ends as objectively good. The paper is divided into four sections. In the first, I explain what is at stake in the argument for FH. In the second, I explain the relevant terms and introduce some alternative positions that are available. In the third, I argue that there is good reason to think that it is not the case that agents necessarily represent their ends as objectively good and in the fourth, I consider a potential reply to this argument.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Interconnection of Willing and Believing in Kant’s and Kantian Ethics
    (International Philosophical Quarterly., 2014-06) Kahn, Samuel
    In this paper I look at the connection between willing and believing for Kant’s and Kantian ethics. I argue that the two main formulations of the categorical imperative are relativized to agents according to their beliefs. I then point out three different ways in which Kant or a present-day Kantian might defend this position. I conclude with some remarks about the contrast between Kant’s legal theory and his ethical theory.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Is the Final Chapter of the Metaphysics of morals also the Final Chapter of the Practical Postulates?
    (American Catholic Philosophical Association., 2015) Kahn, Samuel
    In this paper I trace the arc of Kant’s critical stance on the belief in God, beginning with the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and culminating in the final chapter of the Metaphysics of Morals (1797). I argue that toward the end of his life, Kant changed his views on two important topics. First, despite his stinging criticism of it in the Critique of Pure Reason, by the time of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant seems to endorse the physico-theological argument. Second, some time around the publication of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant seems to move away from the argument for the practical postulates
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Kant and the duty to promote one’s own happiness
    (Taylor & Francis, 2018) Kahn, Samuel; Philosophy, School of Liberal Arts
    In his discussion of the duty of benevolence in §27 of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that agents have no obligation to promote their own happiness, for ‘this happens unavoidably’ (MS, AA 6:451). In this paper I argue that Kant should not have said this. I argue that Kant should have conceded that agents do have an obligation to promote their own happiness.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Kant, the Practical Postulates, and Clifford’s Principle
    (Brill, 2020) Kahn, Samuel; Philosophy, School of Liberal Arts
    In this paper I argue that Kant would have endorsed Clifford’s principle. The paper is divided into four sections. In the first, I review Kant’s argument for the practical postulates. In the second, I discuss a traditional objection to the style of argument Kant employs. In the third, I explain how Kant would respond to this objection and how this renders the practical postulates consistent with Clifford’s principle. In the fourth, I introduce positive grounds for thinking that Kant would have endorsed this principle.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Kantian Responds to Santayana
    (2015-03) Kahn, Samuel
    In this paper, I have argued that whatever might be said about his attack on other German philosophers, Santayana’s attack on Kant, despite its subtlety, its force and its intelligence, is fundamentally misguided. Teasing out where Santayana’s attack rests on misunderstandings of Kant’s philosophy is a useful exercise: it is useful for Kantians, for it gives us a chance to show Kant at his best; it is useful for Santayana scholars, for it reminds us that Santayana, for all his brilliance, was not infallible; and it is useful more generally, for the mistakes Santayana makes about Kant are, perhaps in part because of Santayana’s well-deservedly wide influence, still prevalent today.