Download pdf
Autonomy and Moral Emotion — A Response to the Conciliatory Proposition of Kant`s Morality
- 1 Xi’an Gaoxin No 1 High School International Course Center
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
German philosopher Kant, in his moral philosophy, made a clear distinction between categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative. Under his three propositions of morality, Kant argued that only actions motivated by maxims (or moral principles) rather than any other emotional feelings could produce moral worth. Since then, the criticism from Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and a series of reconciling propositions from other later scholars such as Paten, Henson towards such Kantian dichotomy have never ended. This sets the main focus of my article.The article is divided into three parts: the first part expounds the content and ethical basis of Kantian philosophy by explaining the epistemological gap between noumenon and phenomenon. The second part focuses on four different reconciling propositions proposed by Paton, Henson, Herman, and Allison as well as their shared issue: they all try to revise the conclusion within Kantian philosophy in a theory of motivation outside the Kantian philosophy. By tracing back to the three propositions and the relationship between autonomy and heteronomy, the last part offers the article’s own argument: though Kant denies emotion as a motivation to produce moral worth, he does not exclude it from the inevitable concomitant from phenomena.
Keywords
moral philosophy, duty, kantianism, moral value
[1]. Michael Stocker, (1976) “The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories”, Journal of Philosophy, (73).
[2]. Bernards Williams, (1973)“Morality and the Emotions”, in Problems of the Self, Cambridge University Press.
[3]. Philippa Foot, (2002) Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy, Oxford University Press.
[4]. H.J. Paton, (1974) The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy, London: Hutchinson University Library.
[5]. Richard G. (1979) Henson, What Kant Might Have Said: Moral Worth and the Overdetermination of Dutiful Action, The Philosophical Review.
[6]. Herman, (1933) Barbara: The Practice of Moral Judgment, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
[7]. Henry E. Allison, (2011)Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary, Oxford University Press.
[8]. Gongrui. (2018) On the Conciliatory propositions of Kant’s first proposition of duty [J]. Morality and Civilization, (03):64-71.
Cite this article
Xu,B. (2023). Autonomy and Moral Emotion — A Response to the Conciliatory Proposition of Kant`s Morality. Communications in Humanities Research,7,31-37.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Innovation and Philosophical Inquiries
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).