Reading Assignment and Focus Questions for Christine Korsgaard’s

Kant Formula of Humanity and The Right to Lie: Kant on dealing with evil

Kant’s Formula of Humanity

Because this article is quite complicated, I have selected the portions of it that are most relevant to understanding Korgaard’s interpretation of the second formulation of the CI. I realize that by doing this I am asking you to do two things at once: carefully read the assignment at the same time as you are doing the reading. But I believe that you will rise to the occasion.

A. Reading Assignment: pp. 106 – 107 ‘til "the appropriate material for a principle of practical reason."; p. 107 from "the difference between morally worthy action and morally indifferent action is that – p. 108 "til "It is that which must never be acted against."; p. 114 from "But the distinctive feature of humanity, as such, - p. 116 ‘til "If one’s end cannot be shared, . . . the action cannot be rational."; p. 116 from "Since good is a rational concept, a good end will be one for which" – ‘til "In one sense, this question . . . . There Kant asserts that the only thing that can be conceived to be unconditionally good is a good will."; p. 119 sec. IV from "Having established that if there is a categorical imperative" – p. 123 ‘til "What enables Kant to make both claims without any problem is this: humanity is the power of rational choice."; p. 124 from bottom par. "The question is then" – p. 125 ‘til "No relative end can be pursued . . . without a kind of contradiction."

B. Focus Questions on Kant’s Formula of Humanity

1.According to Korsgaard, what is she specifically concerned to examine in this paper?

2. In Korsgaard’s view, what is the difference between morally worthy action and morally indifferent action?

3. In addition to the two obligatory (i.e. positive) ends (namely, developing one’s own talents and helping others) what is the moral end that in Korsgaard view functions negatively for Kant in the sense that he holds one must never act against this end.

4. According to Korsgaard, what does Kant regard as being the distinctive feature of humanity as such?

5. According to Korsgaard, what two things are meant by the thesis—held in her view by Kant—that good is a rational concept?

6. According to Korsgaard, why does Kant believe that one’s own happiness cannot be the ultimate object of a rational desire? She attributes to Kant two reasons for claiming that Happiness cannot be the end that bestows moral worth on actions.

 

The Right to Lie: Kant on dealing with evil

    1. Read the entire article. I also am here putting an extra burden on you because due to a mistake by the bookstore I have had to put this article on electronic reserve. The easiest way to get a copy of this article is to go to the reserve bookroom and use their computer to access the article for printing. Alternatively, you can access the article from your home computer by going from the CSUS web page to the links for: library, reserve book room, Philosophy 152. To actually print out the article from home you may need to reset your margins. Please bring a copy of the article to class.

    2. Focus Questions

    1. According to Korsgaard, why is it that a person could achieve his/her goal of deception, if the person were to universalize the maxim of lying to the murderer at the door?

    2. According to Korsgaard, why is it that a person cannot in principle assent to being lied to?

    3. According to Korsgaard, why is it that given the Formula of Humanity, coercion and deception are the most fundamental forms of wrongdoing to others?

    4. From the perspective of the Formula of Humanity, how could one justify lying to the murderer at the door?

    5. According to Korsgaard, which of the two formulations of the categorical imperative—the Formula of Universal Law or the Formula of Humanity—represents the rule of conduct that would provide guidance in less than ideal circumstances, if Kant’s moral theory were treated as being a double-level theory?