Kant’s moral theory aims at highest good, and he believes that good will is the mote unconditioned kind of good in the world. According to Kant, human beings are continually subject to the reason’ demand, and they should try to cultivate their humanity following the universal moral laws. However, he doesn’t leave us with an ambiguity about the definition of these universal laws; proposing his categorical imperative, he leads us to the universal laws. He believes that we would go toward (...) unconditionality and the highest good following these rules. By the way, there are different interpretations of his categorical imperatives as well as some their extensions. There are two possible interpretations of the third formulation of categorical imperatives and its relation to the animal rights in general, and the vegetarians’ viewpoint in particular. Some people might believe that “being end in itself” is incompatible with vegetarianism. They will invoke some quotes from Kant’s work which support their views. In The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant Explicitly prescribes killing the animals and making use of them, and it can be served as strong evidence to the idea that Kant's moral theory is inconsistent with vegetarianism. However, I don’t think so. According to the second possible interpretation, I believe that Kant’s moral theory is incompatible with the interpretations proposed by those who think it is not compatible with vegetarianism. In the first part of this paper, I briefly explain the relationship of reason and nature in Kant’s moral theory. Then in the second part, I shall explain two concepts of “person” and “things” in his texts, and briefly, state the difference between rational being and non-rational being in his philosophy. Then. In the third part, I will explore some pieces by my Kantian opponent of vegetarianism, and I shall show that their interpretation is some kind of oversimplification. On the basis of some passages of Kant’s writings, using one mental experiment, and one counterexample, I hope to show that Kant is completely sympathetic to vegetarianism. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that Kantian ethics is not inclusive, and his formulation of CI fails. It excludes some intuitive moral actions. I show that Kant’s formulation of categorical imperative fails in some important category of moral actions, due to the fact that its first formula (i.e., the formula of universal law ) is contingent, and doesn't necessarily obtain in all categories of moral actions. Wood in 1999 shows that the formula of universal law is incomplete, however, I argue (...) that it is not a necessary condition for moral action; and this entails the failure of CI. There are some exceptional moral maxims (and relevant actions), which are both permissible and moral, but they cannot be thought as universal one, without practical contradiction. (shrink)

In this paper, I propose a pragmatic theory of meaning. In section 1, I clarify the distinction between meanNN and meanN proposed by Grice (1957), and I suggest a new distinction between linguistic and non-linguistic meanNN. In section 2, I shall explain Grice theory of meaning and criticize it. In section 3, I explain the classical theory of meaning and shall propose some consideration about it. Then, in section 4, I shall elaborate on the pragmatic theory of meaning, and I (...) explore its difference with Grice theory of meaning as well as the classical theory of meaning. I also clarify the role of practical consequences in the pragmatic theory of meaning and will explain how it relates to Quine’s idea of the indeterminacy of translation. Section 5 concludes. (shrink)

Robert Nozick, in chapter two of the nature of rationality, proposes two famous problems in decision theory (i.e., Newcomb's problem and Prisoner Dilemma) and two main strategies toward these problems i.e. dominant strategy and dominated or cooperative one. He will try to give a formal principles to calculate the decision values in these situations. In this calculation he goes beyond the standard principle of maximizing expected utility and would try to put forth less ideal and more realistic principles that fit (...) the decision situation in the real world. (shrink)

David Gauthier in his article, Maximization constrained: the rationality of cooperation, tries to defend of the joint strategy in situations which no outcome is both equilibrium and optimal. Prisoner’s Dilemma is the most familiar example of these situations. He first starts with some quotes by Hobbes in Leviathan; Hobbes, in chapter 15 discusses an objection by someone is called Foole, and then will reject his view. In response to Foole, Hobbes presents two strategies (i.e. joint and individual) and two kinds (...) of agents in such problems including Prisoner’s Dilemma – i.e. straightforward maximizer (SM) and constrained maximizer(CM). Then he considers two arguments respectively for SM and CM, and he will show that why in an ideal and transparent situation, the first argument fails and the second one would be the only valid argument. likewise, in the following part of his article, he considers more realistic situations with translucency and he concludes that under some conditions, joint strategy would be still the rational decision. (shrink)