3

If there is an ordering to the UL (universal law), H (humanity), and LO (law unto oneself) formulae, such that UL < H < LO, then wouldn't Kant have thought, in the Religion, that putting the formulae in the "wrong order" was the problem of wrongly orienting one's will? I ask because Kant adverts instead to just a dialectic of happiness-vs.-virtue, proclaiming both to be rational ends but such that one has priority over the other (in line with his "making oneself worthy of being happy" ideal in even the first Critique).

So:

  1. Wood is mistaken; the formulae are not actually successive representations and it is not misguided to focus on any of them, though each is an aid to understanding the others?

  2. Wood is not mistaken; there is a way to map a "wrong ordering of the formulae" onto the wrong prioritizing of happiness over virtue?

2
  • Kant explicitly states that these are "at bottom the same law" (Groundwork 4:436), suggesting they are not meant to be ranked hierarchically. Allen Wood argues that the formulae are not successive representations but different lenses for understanding the moral law, each addressing distinct facets of moral reasoning (e.g., universality, respect for persons, and autonomy). However, misapplying the formulae could lead to ethical errors. For instance, focusing solely on H might neglect the necessity of universalizability (UL), risking exceptions for "humanity" in subjective cases... Commented Apr 11 at 7:00
  • @DoubleKnot did he soften his aggressiveness about this of late? I remember in one of his now-old books that he exalted the autonomy formula over the others and seemed mad at people who translated Kant to get equivalence out of the formulae, but he seemed mad at a bunch of people for a bunch of reasons "back then." Commented Apr 11 at 8:39

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.