Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: Preface (Ak 4:387-392 = Wood, pp. 3-8)

The title

Morals = morality

Metaphysics of morals

— The “pure” rational part of morality

— Applies to all rational beings (not just humans)

— Contrast: “practical anthropology” (empirical part, depends on observed facts about human nature)

Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals

— Lays the foundations for the metaphysics of morals

— Search for “the supreme principle of morality” (Ak 4:392)

Kant’s conception of ethics

— Morally valid laws are absolutely necessary. (Ak 4:389)

— Hence the ground of obligation is a priori in concepts of pure reason. (389)

— A priori (“from before”) = independent of experience (for its justification).

— Contrast term: a posteriori (“from afterwards”) = dependent on experience (for its justification) = empirical.

— Pure part of ethics applies to all rational beings: a “metaphysics of morals”.

— Empirical part applies pure part to human beings using information about human nature.

Think questions (for tutorial)

Does Kant have a good argument that morality must be grounded a priori in concepts of pure reason?

1. What does Kant mean by saying that morally valid laws are absolutely necessary? Are they?
2. Does it follow that obligation has an a priori ground?
3. State one other way in which someone might ground obligation.
4. What could Kant say against this other way of grounding obligation?
5. What could a proponent of this other ground say in favour of it or against Kant’s appeal to pure reason?

Think question (for right now)

— Kant argues that moral obligation must be grounded a priori in concepts of pure reason.

— How else might someone propose to ground moral obligation?

— Write down one or more possibilities.

— Share with a neighbour

— Refine one of them for sharing with the class.

Rival material grounds: Kant (Critique of Practical Reason Ak 5:40)

Role of the Groundwork

something like a critique of pure practical reason (391, to complement his Critique of Pure [Speculative] Reason)

but not completely developed

and not carried through into a metaphysics of morals

a laying of the ground: establishment of the supreme principle of morality (392)

Sequence (392):

— common rational moral cognition à philosophical moral cognition (Section 1, 393-405)

— philosophical moral cognition à metaphysics of morals (Section 2, 406-445)

— metaphysics of morals à critique of pure practical reason (Section 3, 446-463)

Next

Preface (Ak 4:387-392, pp. 3-8).

— Read and digest. If it helps, compare to my summary, or consult “Kant made simpler”, both on ELM.

— Jot down your questions for clarification, comments, issues of concern.

— Raise them at the beginning of class next week.

First Section: Transition from common rational moral cognition to philosophical moral cognition (Ak 4:393-405, pp. 9-21

— Please read and digest. No assignment on this section.

Outline

— Argument that only the good will is good without limitation

— Acting from duty vs. acting in conformity with duty

— Moral worth of an action derives from its maxim not its effects

— Hence duty = necessity of an action from respect for the law

— The Formula of Universal Law (FUL)

— Application to an example

— Common moral cognition: transition

Second Section: Transition from popular moral philosophy to the metaphysics of morals (Ak 4:406-424, pp. 22-42)

— Reflection due by midnight Sunday (Sep. 20)

Outline

— Arguments for basing morality on pure reason (406-411)

— Practical reason as ability to act from representation of laws: commands and imperatives (412-413)

— Hypothetical vs. categorical imperatives (414-420)

— Maxims (420)

— First formulation of the categorical imperative (two versions):

— The Formula of Universal Law (FUL, 421)

— The Formula of the Law of Nature (FLN, 421)

— Application to four examples (422-424)