The term ‘miracle’ generally refers to events that are not explicable by natural causes alone. Kant’s notion of miracles is usually understood along these lines. However, Kant’s occupation with miracles should be understood in a practical context. Belief in miracles plays a constitutive role in Kant’s philosophy of religion concerning the need to strengthen the will both before and after departing from original evil. I demonstrate how my argument sheds new light on Kant’s claim that theoretical reason precludes the possibility (...) of material miracles. (shrink)

It is commonly held that Kant ventured to derive morality from freedom in Groundwork III. It is also believed that he reversed this strategy in the second Critique, attempting to derive freedom from morality instead. In this paper, I set out to challenge these familiar assumptions: Kant’s argument in Groundwork III rests on a moral conception of the intelligible world, one that plays a similar role as the ‘fact of reason’ in the second Critique. Accordingly, I argue, there is no (...) reversal in the proof-structure of Kant’s two works. (shrink)

Recent publications (Henrich, Seeberg) claim that Kant has been profoundly influenced by contemporary publications on juridical deductions. I try to show, that this cannot be right. The introductory note of the “Transcendental Deduction” (Critique of Pure Reason A 84) poses two questions: “quid facti?” and “quid juris?”. The first is answered by the demonstration of the possibility of relations between pure concepts and pure intuition und sensations, the second by the implicit refutation of David Hume. Kant and his interpreters sustain (...) the possibility of using juridical concepts, that are neither related to real juridical facts nor are only metaphers, but have a special philosophical signification. But what should that be? (shrink)

La libertad tiene un valor sistemático fundamental en la filosofía de Kant. En la filosofía práctica, ella es condición de la acción en sentido eminente. Tanto en la _Fundamentación de la metafísica de las costumbres_, cuanto en la _Crítica de la razón práctica_, Kant intenta probar la libertad. La argumentación en ambas obras es distinta. El presente trabajo hace foco especialmente en la justificación de la segunda _Crítica_. En ella, Kant plantea que de la libertad sabemos gracias al hecho de (...) la consciencia moral o de una ley que vincula al sujeto incondicionadamente. Se intentará mostrar, a partir de una consideración de los textos de Kant, las obras de algunos intérpretes, así como en una reflexión sistemática, que la libertad, y el hecho de la consciencia moral, requieren de un acceso a la espontaneidad práctica por parte del sujeto, asunto que Kant deja sugerido en algunos pasajes. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDer Beitrag entfaltet eine grundsätzliche Kritik an konsequenzialistischen Ethiken. Unsere Kritik zielt auf den Nachweis, dass konsequenzialistische Ansätze einer methodischen Anforderung bei der Begründung eines Moralprinzips nicht gerecht werden, weil sie einen Begriff des Guten voraussetzen, ohne auf seinen epistemischen Status zu reflektieren. Es gelingt ihnen daher nicht, einen Begriff des Guten zu entwickeln, der gleichermaßen sowohl die Erkenntnis einer logischen Notwendigkeit als auch einer praktischen Relevanz zum Ausdruck bringen kann. Aus methodischen Gründen muss daher unklar bleiben, warum das, was (...) als „gut“ gesetzt und erkannt wird, auch realisiert werden muss.Wir gehen in vier Schritten vor: In einem ersten Schritt greifen wir mit dem Ziel der Verschärfung des Problems mit dem so genannten deontologischen Paradox eine der größten Herausforderungen für deontologische Ethiken auf. Wir wollen aber zeigen, dass dieses Paradox überhaupt nur formuliert werden kann, wenn bereits von einem Prinzip des Guten ausgegangen wird, ohne es in ein Verhältnis zur praktischen Vernunft des Handelnden zu setzen. Dazu rekonstruieren wir in einem zweiten Schritt Mills Beweis für das Nützlichkeitsprinzip des Utilitarismus, weil sich daran das methodische Problem einer Erkenntnis des Guten besonders gut herausarbeiten lässt. Im dritten Schritt entwickeln wir unter Rückgriff auf methodologische Überlegungen Kants aus der Kritik der praktischen Vernunft ein Argument, das zeigen soll, dass in keiner moralphilosophischen Argumentation ein Begriff des Guten einfach vorausgesetzt werden kann, ohne logisch primär die durch das Prädikat „gut“ erkannte praktische Notwendigkeit in ein Verhältnis zum Handelnden zu setzen. Das, was überhaupt als gut erkannt werden kann, ist daher durch reflexive Urteile über den Modus des praktischen Erkennens zu bestimmen. Mit diesem Ergebnis wird in einem vierten Schritt das deontologische Paradox aufgelöst. (shrink)

En este trabajo analizaré dos aspectos relativos a lo que Kant considera el principio fundamental de la razón práctica. En primer lugar, intentaré mostrar que el principio práctico fundamental implica necesariamente una suerte de suspensión de todo principio subjetivo de acción, esto es, de la función orientadora propia de las máximas. Este sería un primer momento de negatividad inherente a la conciencia de la ley moral en nosotros. En segundo lugar, trataré también de mostrar que la conciencia de dicha ley (...) implica el reconocimiento de nuestra inadecuación originaria respecto de ella, y que dicha inadecuación es sentida necesariamente como un peculiar tipo de dolor, sentimiento negativo tan único y originario como es único y originario el hecho de la conciencia de la ley. Este sería un segundo momento de negatividad, relativo esta vez a la propia identidad práctica del agente. (shrink)

Resumen En el § 7 de la Crítica de la razón práctica Kant expone su primera definición de la ley moral universal. Ahí afirma que la conciencia de ella es un “Faktum de la razón”. La ambigüedad de esta expresión ha hecho que algunos autores argumenten que Kant no deduce la ley moral satisfactoriamente ni aclara cómo llegamos a ser conscientes de ella. Sin embargo estos críticos olvidan en sus análisis un aspecto relevante de la filosofía moral kantiana y que (...) es de gran relevancia en los estudios contemporáneos de la filosofía de la acción: el carácter autoconstitutivo del yo o del sujeto racional y su papel en la fundamentación de la moralidad. Sostengo que el Faktum de la razón debe entenderse fundamentalmente como un acto autoconstitutivo.In § 7 of the Critique of Practical Reason Kant presents his first definition of the universal law of morality - called the Categorical Imperative. In the same place, he affirms that being conscious of the law of morality is a Faktum of reason. The ambiguity of this statement has prompted some authors to argue that Kant does not deduce the moral law satisfactorily nor does he clarify how we become conscious of it. Nevertheless, they all forget in their analysis a relevant aspect of Kantian moral philosophy that turns out to be of great importance in contemporary studies of the philosophy of action - the self-constituting character of the rational subject and the role it plays within the foundation of morality. I claim that the Faktum of reason must be understood fundamentally as a self-constituting act. (shrink)

Kant is by no means the pure rationalist that Husserl and others represented him as being. To the contrary I claim that Kant is an ethical intuitionist when it comes to our recognition of the validity of the moral law. Interpreting Kant’s famous thesis about the “fact of reason”, I will first argue for three interpretative theses: 1. The factum theory explains our insight into the binding character of the moral law; it is a theory of justification. 2. In our (...) consciousness of the categorical imperative, the moral law is immediately given in its unconditional and binding validity. 3. The unconditional validity of the CI is given in the feeling of respect. Drawing on basic thoughts of Reformed Epistemology, I will then sketch a way to defend Kant’s theory. (shrink)

Kant's well-known statement from the “Critique of Practical Reason” (§ 7) that the consciousness of the basic law of pure practical reason (or the customary/moral law) can be called a fact of reason (V, 31.24) has not yet become the subject of adequate attention of domestic researchers. In the “Critique of Practical Reason”, Kant justify his famous categorical imperative by appealing to the “fact of reason” (§ 7). A closer reading of this passage reveals that it refers to a “fundamental (...) law of pure practical reason” and its “consciousness” is called “a fact of reason”. It is likely to think that Kant makes a “naturalistic fallacy” when he tries to justify “ought” (law) from “is” (fact). An analysis of the broader context of the use of the term “fact”, which occurs in the Critique in general 11 times, proves that its denotation is a moral law, which is explained in the corresponding train of thought. A special problem of interpretation is the explanation of the genitive in the expression “a fact of reason” [ein Factum der Vernunft]. It is common to read it as genitivus subjectivus (the fact is a product (act) of the reason, the fact arises thanks to the reason) and as genitivus objectivus (the reason itself is a fact, something factual). But from the standpoint of modern studies of Kant its reading as genitivus auctoris (Willaschek, Wolff, Noller) is promising. Kant’s specific use of the Latin form “ein Factum” in other works, which has the meaning not of “fact”, but of “imputable act” also, testifies in favor of this. Starting with Dieter Heinrich’s article “The Concept of Moral Insight and Kant’s Doctrine of the Fact of Reason” (1960), many researchers interpret the thesis of the “fact of reason” as Kant’s rejection of the attempt at the deduction of moral insight in the “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Moral” (1785). However, as modern studies (Riedel, Wolff) show, this interpretation is not convincing enough. There are sufficient reasons to believe that it is Kant’s moral and legal doctrine of imputatio facti can explicate an enigmatic passage of the II Critique. (shrink)