The evidence from morality and the categorical imperative
Hello Rabbi,
In the fourth notebook, the rabbi presents the evidence from morality as an answer to the question of who determines what values are good and what values are not. The rabbi then presents the evidence according to Kant. But Kant supposedly answers this question from the categorical imperative. That is, a good value is one that passes the critique of the imperative. Why does he need an objective standard besides that? Is it correct to say that he is looking for validity for the imperative itself, or have I missed something in my understanding here?
Indeed. Kant only shows that if there is indeed a moral command, its form is necessarily categorical (an unconditional command) and its content is the categorical command in its formulation (do your actions in the way you would want it to be a general law). But in his analysis he assumes that there is a command and that one must obey it and seeks what that command is and what its nature is. What is the basis of the command’s validity and why obey it are other questions, and which the analysis of the categorical command does not answer. The evidence from morality (also Kant’s) deals with them.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
