This shows up a lot on his "Groundworks to the Metaphysics of Morals", without a prior definition, such as in

Everything in nature works according to laws. Rational beings alone have the faculty of acting according to the conception of laws, that is according to principles, i.e, have a will. Since the deduction of actions from principles requires reason, the will is nothing but practical reason. If reason infallibly determines the will, then the actions of such a being which are recognized as objectively necessary are subjectively necessary also, i.e, the will is a faculty to choose that only which reason independent of inclination recognises as practically necessary, i.e, as good. But if reason of itself does not sufficiently determine the will, if the latter is subject also to subjective conditions (particular impulses) which do not always coincide with the objective conditions; in a word, if the will does not in itself completely accord with reason ( which actually is the case with men), then the actions which objectively are recognised as necessary are subjectively contingent, and the determination of such a will according to objective laws is obligation, that is to say, the relation of the objective laws to a will that is not thoroughly good is conceived as the determination of the will of a rational being by principles of reason, but which the will from its nature does not of necessity follow.

I've been puzzled about that, but I don't have a Kantian dictionary easy at hand.

  • 2
    See IV 4 16 (Engl transl. page 61) : "For only the law carries with it the concept of an unconditional and indeed objective and hence universally valid necessity, and commands are laws that must be obeyed, i.e. must be complied with even contrary to inclination." Thus, "objective" means unconditionally valid (and thus not depending on the point of view of the subject : "independently of inclination, recognizes as practically necessary"). Jun 5, 2019 at 9:44
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA that is indeed very helpful, thanks. Jun 5, 2019 at 11:12
  • You are welcome :-) Jun 5, 2019 at 11:17

2 Answers 2


I don't believe you can find a dictionary dedicated solely to Kant, though that would be quite handy.

That said, Objectively necessary action is an action that which is rought as a categorical imperative.

Subjectively necessary here means an action driven by guts (emotions or whatever you might want to call it) alone. That is, a person is naturally drawn to initiate the said action without any prior rational justification.

One more thing, next time give some more context, OR at least add the page no. etc.

  • 2
    Regarding the first paragraph: There is the historical Eisler and a modern, three-volume dictionary by Willaschek et. al. in German (besides other, less useful and important ones). I do not know of English versions, though. Regarding the subjective/objective distinction, there is a transformation in his work. While subjective starts as "particular, individual" and ends up as "due to a certain kind of cognitive processing", objective starts out as "universal among finite rational beings like us" and already in the Groundwork has become "universal among rational beings". Hope I can answer later.
    – Philip Klöcking
    Jun 5, 2019 at 6:47
  • @PhilipKlöcking I missed the former aspect of subjectivity, defining it solely as the "action driven by (gut)." However, I do think that objective necessity is what I have defined it. That said, it is quite possible that I am mistaken, since it has been a while since I have looked (let alone read) Kant. Regards Jun 5, 2019 at 8:34
  • @PhilipKlöcking looking forward to your answer, I am quite sure it would be an interesting read. Regards Jun 5, 2019 at 8:36
  • 1
    Oh thanks. Regarding the reference being short, I'm well aware of that, was studying late at night when I asked the question, but I hope I'll add more details soon as I get to college today Jun 5, 2019 at 9:37

This is from 4:413

Reason reveals that we have will because we can act according to it or against it. Objectivity in ethics is action that is necessary according to the categorical imperative vs merely subjective actions following a hypothetical imperative. You can't have objectivity necessity without subjective desire.

In speculative reason, i.e., judgments about how things are in nature vs how we ought to behave ideally, for me to have my own subjective experiences requires an objective outside world of objects capable of being experienced that are separate from me. Objective facts are impossible without subjective experience.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .