The Problem with Using a Maxim Permissibility Test to Derive Obligations

If you need an accessible version of this item, please email your request to digschol@iu.edu so that they may create one and provide it to you.
Date
2022-06-23
Language
American English
Embargo Lift Date
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Linköping University Electronic Press
Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to show that, if Kant’s universalization formulations of the Categorical Imperative are our only standards for judging right from wrong and permissible from impermissible, then we have no obligations. I shall do this by examining five different views of how obligations can be derived from the universalization formulations and arguing that each one fails. I shall argue that the first view rests on a misunderstanding of the universalization formulations; the second on a misunderstanding of the concept of an obligation; the third on a misunderstanding of the concept of a maxim; the fourth on a misunderstanding of the limits of action description; and the fifth on a misunderstanding of the universalization formulations again.

Description
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
Kahn, S. (2022). The Problem with Using a Maxim Permissibility Test to Derive Obligations. De Ethica, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.3384/de-ethica.2001-8819.227131
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
De Ethica
Source
Publisher
Alternative Title
Type
Article
Number
Volume
Conference Dates
Conference Host
Conference Location
Conference Name
Conference Panel
Conference Secretariat Location
Version
Final published version
Full Text Available at
This item is under embargo {{howLong}}