1

Please let me know whether you detect objectionable points in my attempt at reconstructing Kant's universalization principle.

Reference : Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysics_of_Morals#The_Concept_of_Freedom_is_the_Key_that_explains_the_Autonomy_of_the_Will

(1) Free will does not act in an heteronomous way.

(2) Free will is autonomous, free will is to itself its own law.

(3) The only law a free will obeys is " be yourself", " let your own essence be your law"

(4) Will is by definition a rational appetite, a rational desire ( for will is the superior faculty of desiring).

(5) A rational appetite acts upon universal rules ( for reason in the faculty of the universal) . ( It would not be rational to claim " I am entitled to do this action because being myself gives me special rights". Acting rationally implies that I recognize I am allowed to do action A iff for all person x , if such and such conditions are fullfilled, x is allowed to do action A)

(6) The only law a free will obeys is " act upon universal rules" .

(7) Acting upon universal rules implies not attributing privileges to oneself, and hence, being " just", " moral".

(8) A free will is a moral will.

(9) Being moral is equivalent to acting upon universal rules, or rules that are able to stand the test of universalization.

Improve this question
3
  • It would help if you indexed (1) - (9) to specific texts in the Groundwork or elsewhere. I ask only because I hesitate over locutions such as 'be yourself'.
    – Geoffrey Thomas ♦
    Feb 2, 2020 at 21:11
  • 'reason in the faculty of the universal' - or 'is the faculty'?
    – Geoffrey Thomas ♦
    Feb 2, 2020 at 21:12
  • 1
    This both seems to distort Kantian points and does not resemble reasoning at all since it lacks any argumentative structure. If I understand this correctly, you want to reconstruct the argument of the first part of the third section. This revolves heavily around the point that freedom is a form of causality. I'd suggest to reread carefully sentence by sentence and try to identify argumentative steps.
    – Philip Klöcking ♦
    Feb 3, 2020 at 9:02

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.