Illocutionary logic as a tool for reconstructing Kant’s derivation of the formula of the categorical imperative from its mere concept

Dirk Greimann

doi:10.5007/1808-1711.2024.e96739

Autores

Dirk Greimann Universidade Federal Fluminense https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7828-3501

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2024.e96739

Palavras-chave:

Kant, Categorical Imperative, Illocutionary Logic, Self-defeating Speech Act

Resumo

This paper aims to reconstruct Kant’s derivation of the formula of the categorical imperative from its mere concept with the help of the resources of Searle’s and Vanderveken’s illocutionary logic. The main exegetical hypothesis is that the derivation envisaged by Kant consists in deriving the formula from the success conditions of categorical imperatives. These conditions, which are analogous to the success conditions of ordinary orders, contain restrictions for the successful construction of a system of moral laws that determine what the content of the categorical imperative must be.

Referências

Allison, H. 1991. On a Presumed Gap in the Derivation of the Categorial Imperative. Philosophical Topics 19: 1-15.

Beck, L. W. 1960. A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Bittner, R. 1993. Das Unternehmen einer Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In: O. Höffe (ed.), Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Ein kooperativer Kommentar, 13-30. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.

Greimann, D. 2004. Ist die Ethik Kants ontologisch unschuldig? Kant-Studien 95: 107-127.

Greimann, D. 2003. Kants Ableitung der Formel des Kategorischen Imperativs aus seinem blossen Begriff. In: U. Meixner & A. Neven (ed.), Philosophiegeschichte und logische Analyse, vol. 6, Geschichte der Ethik, 97-111, Paderborn: Mentis.

Habermas, J. 1999. Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Hare, R. M. 1952. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Henrich, D. 1975. Die Deduktion des Sittengesetzes. In: A. Schwan (ed.), Denken im Schatten des Nihilismus, Festschrift für W. Weischedel, 55-112. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Höffe, O. 1993. Kants nichtempirische Verallgemeinerung: zum Rechtsbeispiel des falschen Versprechens. In: O. Höffe (ed.), Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Ein kooperativer Kommentar, 206-233. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.

Kant, I. 2011 [1785]. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. German-English edition, edited and translated by M. Gregor and J. Timmermann, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kant, I. 2002 [1788]. The Critique of Practical Reason, translated by W. Pluhar and introduced by S. Engstro, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Kutschera, F. von. 1999. Grundlagen der Ethik, second edition. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Mackie, J. L. 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, London: Penguin Books.

Marina, J. 1998. Kant’s Derivation of the Formula of the Categorical Imperative: How to Get it Right. Kant-Studien 89: 167-178.

Onof, Ch. 1998. A Framework for the Derivation and Reconstruction of the Categorical Imperative. Kant-Studien 89: 410-427.

Rawls, J. 1980. Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory. Rational and Full Autonomy. Journal of Philosophy 77: 515-572.

Rawls, J. 1989. Themes in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. In: E. Förster (ed.), Kant’s Transzendental Deductions. The Three Critiques and the Opus Posthumum, 81-113. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Vanderveken, D. 1980. Illocutionary Logic and Self-Defeating Speech Acts. In: J. R. Searle; F. Kiefer; M. Bierwisch (ed.), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, 247-272. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

Wood, A. 1999. Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.