display all the ideas for this combination of texts
4 ideas
18675 | Kant may rate two things as finally valuable: having a good will, and deserving happiness [Orsi on Kant] |
Full Idea: In some interpretations it appears that for Kant two things are finally valuable: good will (unconditionally), and deserved happiness (conditionally on the value of good will). | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Critique of Practical Reason [1788]) by Francesco Orsi - Value Theory 2.2 | |
A reaction: It doesn't sound difficult to reconcile these two. Just ask 'what is required of someone to deserve happiness?'. |
22007 | An autonomous agent has dignity [Würde], which has absolute worth [Kant, by Pinkard] |
Full Idea: For Kant, there is something about beings that can act autonomously that is itself of 'absolute worth', which Kant calls the 'dignity' [Würde] of each such agent. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Critique of Practical Reason [1788]) by Terry Pinkard - German Philosophy 1760-1860 02 | |
A reaction: This answers my puzzle about where Kant's fundamental values come from. Surely wicked actions can be autonomous? Autonomous actions aren't thereby good actions. A 'good' will, course, whatever that is. Rational? My problem with existentialist ethics. |
18234 | The good will is unconditionally good, because it is the only possible source of value [Kant, by Korsgaard] |
Full Idea: Kant argues that the good will is unconditionally good because it is the only thing able to be a source of value. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Critique of Practical Reason [1788]) by Christine M. Korsgaard - Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value 8 'Kant' | |
A reaction: The obvious worry is the circularity of resting a theory of value on identifying a 'good' will as its source. |
6192 | Good or evil cannot be a thing, but only a maxim of action, making the person good or evil [Kant] |
Full Idea: If something is held to be absolutely good or evil in all respects and without qualification, it could not be a thing but only the manner of acting, i.e., it could only be the maxim of the will, and consequently the acting person himself is good or evil. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Critique of Practical Reason [1788], I.1.II) | |
A reaction: It goes on to deny that pain is intrinsically evil, but his reason for the claim is not clear. Nevetheless, I think he is right. This remark is an important bridge between Enlightenment concerns with law and Greek concerns with character. |