This item is only available for download by members of the University of Illinois community. Students, faculty, and staff at the U of I may log in with your NetID and password to view the item. If you are trying to access an Illinois-restricted dissertation or thesis, you can request a copy through your library's Inter-Library Loan office or purchase a copy directly from ProQuest.
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/87608
Description
Title
Kant and the Universal Claims of Reason
Author(s)
Ketcher, Kerry Tim
Issue Date
1999
Doctoral Committee Chair(s)
Melnick, Arthur
Department of Study
Philosophy
Discipline
Philosophy
Degree Granting Institution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree Name
Ph.D.
Degree Level
Dissertation
Keyword(s)
Philosophy
Language
eng
Abstract
The purpose of my thesis is to defend what I take to be Kant's internalist theory of moral obligation. I argue that any defense of Kant on this score, requires a defense of Kant's theory of freedom, as well as the Kantian claim that reason can function as a motive cause of behaviour. In defense of this claim, I discuss the development of British moral philosophy from Hobbes through Hume. Focusing primarily on the Empiricists, I argue that a commitment to Newtonian mechanism led many to embrace a reductivist theory of human psychology and a naturalistic explanation of human motivation. As a result, many British moral philosophers adopted a hedonistic theory of action. I argue that Kant's criticism of the British Empiricists on these and other related issues, provides an important backdrop against which Kant's own theory of obligation emerged. In particular, Kant rejected reductivist accounts of the mental and physical since any claims to know the nature of 'things in themselves' oversteps the bounds of Reason. Thus, freed from a commitment to mechanism, Kant did not have to accept a compatibilist theory of freedom in order to explain moral agency. I claim Kant's theory of freedom is metaphysically committed to a non-reductive, token-token identity theory where 'intelligible' causal descriptions are not reducible to 'empirical' causal descriptions. As such, Kant can account for the causal efficacy of reason since he can allow for the spontaneity of thought freed from desire. In order to demonstrate the connection between Kant's theory of action and his conception of obligation, I then discuss Kant's claim that persons must always be treated as ends and never simply as means. I argue that Kant's conception of persons as finite, autonomous, rational creatures informs the principle of reason that obligates us to respect others. Therefore, the principle of obligation is internal to reason itself. And, since we are autonomous rational creatures, we are capable of adopting and acting on principle. Thus, obligation and our ability to act according to the dictates of reason go hand in hand.
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
