engleski

Ethical Actuality of Kant’s Categorical Imperative

The presentation deals with Kant’s founding of ethics. Kant’s categorical imperative was viewed as one of the dividing lines in the philosophy of morality. It was therefore viewed as the dividing line between ethical intuitionism and ethical relativism. Namely, until today there is no significant contemporary ethical theory that has not addressed this imperative. And so that it was: a) completely rejected, b) only partially challenged, c) fully accepted. This imperative was considered within the framework of the following theses: (a1) Historical relativism The thesis according to which the categorical imperative, as an ontological pins and the principle of moral judgment, is set as an extra- historical constant, and in an epistemological sense does not refer to anything in objective reality. Adorno’s and Habermas’s objections were considered in this regard. (a2) Ontological ambiguity: The thesis that the categorical imperative is unclear, since it is ontologically based on an unknowable (transcendent) thing in itself (Ding an Sich). According to this thesis The mode of ontological grounding leads Kant’s philosophy to the claim that there are unknowable causes that govern human behavior (how nortmeno, r). Sidgwicks objection was considered in this regard. (b) Psychological interpretation: The thesis according to which the categorical imperative is metaphysically established as an expression of speculative assumptions. Therefore, this imperative, with the help of psychological scientific interpretation, should be fitted into an empirical setting of mentality. c) Ethical intuitionism: The thesis that the categorical imperative is established as a statement of our intuitive ability to distinguish between moral good and evil. So, this imperative provides sufficient reason for intuitively establishing the foundation of philosophical reflection on morality. in this sense, Rawls’s view was considered as an example of the construction of a social contract ; based on the intuition of justice as the moral value. Under the subtitle: ‘The Limits of Historical Relativization’ (al) objections were considered. The objection of ‘formality’ addressed to the part of the categorical imperative which defines it as ‘general law’ is critically considered. Also, the objection of ‘mono logical-quality’ addressed to the part of the categorical imperative that defines it as ‘imperative claim is critically considered. Hegel’s objection to this imperative is particularly singled out since Hegel’s philosophy- does not belong to historical moral relativism. Under the subtitle: ‘The Limits of Ontological Ambiguity, the (a2) objection was considered. With the help of an analysis of Kant’s views, Sidgwick’s objection was rejected as unfounded. Under the subtitle: ‘The Limits of Psychological Interpretation’, (b) thesis was considered. In intuitionistic-oriented contemporary philosophy of psychology ; the epistemological value of the categorical imperative is recognized. But it is emphasized that contemporary psychology does not have such a theoretical explanatory power Explanatory power by which it could be able to express a philosophically understood intuition of morality in a ‘more scientific’ way. In conclusion, the (c) thesis was discussed ; in an attempt to prove the relevance of Kant’s categorical imperative as an historical source of the foundation-oriented contemporary philosophy of morality. Kants notion of ‘unconditioned good’ (das Unbedingt Guten) was crucial here.

categorical imperative ; intuition ; morality

nije evidentirano