Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) [Paperback]

Immanuel Kant (Author), Mary J. Gregor (Editor), Roger J. Sullivan (Introduction)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 31, 1996 | ISBN-10: 0521566738 | ISBN-13: 978-0521566735 | Edition: 2nd

The Metaphysics of Morals is Kant's major work in applied moral philosophy in which he deals with the basic principles of rights and of virtues. It comprises two parts: the "Doctrine of Right," which deals with the rights that people have or can acquire, and the "Doctrine of Virtue," which deals with the virtues they ought to acquire. Mary Gregor's translation, revised for publication in Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, is the only complete translation of the whole text. It includes extensive annotation on Kant's difficult and sometimes unfamiliar vocabulary. A new introduction by Roger Sullivan sets the work in its historical and philosophical context.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Considering this, I think Gregor did an admirable job....If your German is not up to Kant's beautiful but sometimes exerting sentences, get this translation and read it." Karl Hepfer, Philosophy in Review

Language Notes

Text: English (translation)
Original Language: German --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 278 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 2nd edition (May 31, 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521566738
• ISBN-13: 978-0521566735
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #165,254 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent book!, December 20, 1999

By 

Terry Bohannon (Houston, TX USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) (Paperback)

All of Kant's works are outstanding, but what makes the versions of Kant's works good or bad (that I can read) is the translator. Since this book is the only complete translation of both parts of "The Metaphysics of Morals," I had doubts about its quality. But, as I found out, this book has been translated smoothly -- although I cannot compare it with the German version.

What I like about Mary Gregor's translation, is her use of footnotes. She clearly defines Latin phrases and the layered meanings of German words whose depth and meaning would be in too hasty of a translation.

Also, she introduces Kant's main ideas very well; and by doing so, expands and clarifies the ideas he presents in his treatise. The footnotes are not excessive; Gregor seems to have balanced them well. The presentation of the footnotes, typography, and the library grade (acid free) paper make this book a keeper.

3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Understand Kantian ethics, not for the feint of heart, December 19, 2008

By 

Michael A Neulander "Political Philosophy" (VA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) (Paperback)

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Ethics. This is the best translation!!! In "The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," Kant astutely observes how ordinary people speak about morality. He argues, ordinary people's views are presupposed about morality, that there is one supreme moral principle it is the "Categorical Imperative" which is discussed in section two of the book. In section one, he talks about value, and special regard or esteem we have for someone who does the right things. Sometimes, people do the right things for wrong reasons. He is interested in what has to be true for an action to have moral worth. He has a kind of criticism of Utilitarians. Utilitarians say you can talk about what is good, i.e., happiness, before talking about what is right or moral. For Kantians "right" comes prior to the question of what is good. One must bring morality in before talking about the good. Talent and ability is good if put to good use, it can also be bad; for example computer hackers creating "viruses." Only one thing is good in and of itself unconditionally, which is a good "will" which means the will of a person who wants to do the right thing. Even if the plan doesn't work out they still have good will. They desire to do the right thing because it is the right thing.

Kant argues that action has moral worth only if it is done out of respect for duty. For example, if a shopkeeper is honest in an effort to look good to customers he did the right thing, but only in "conformity with duty." He acted out of inclination. If the shopkeeper is honest out of being nice or likes kids then his action is still done out of inclination because he "likes to do it," but his moral worth is less in the action. The shopkeeper who has moral worth is the one who is honest because it was the right thing to do.

Kant's 2nd proposition is that an action gets its moral worth from its "maxim." Maxim is a technical term for Kant; maxim is a kind of principle that explains why someone does something. Kant thinks that whenever we act on an action there always is some maxim that we are acting on. So you can think of a maxim as having the form: I will do A (some kind of action) in C (some set of circumstances) for P. (for some purpose). Now it is not as if normally when you act you formulate to yourself here is my maxim, here is what I am acting on. However, Kant thinks that when you do something there is some maxim that describes your choice. Therefore, Kant thinks there is an underlying maxim there, and it is this maxim Kant thinks that is the real decider about whether your action has moral worth or not. Only actions with the right maxim he thinks have moral worth.

Kant's3rd proposition is that duty is the necessity of acting out of respect for law, (not government law). Kant thinks that actions get there moral worth from being done out of respect for a "universal moral law" that is binding on all rational beings. This is the real clincher for Kant in the first section of his book. That actions have moral worth when the person who did the action did it because he or she thought that there is a moral law that commands them to do the action. For example, "I must obey that law, it is necessary; I have no choice but to obey the law." That notion of following the universal moral law is what gives the action, Kant thinks, its worth that is what makes it worthy of the special esteem he thinks we give actions when people have done them just because they thought they were right.

This is the setup for Kant's all important and famous "categorical imperative which he argues applies to everyone. This is all in Section II. We can deduce many rules from the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is the only one fundamental principle of morality, but it can be formulated in a variety of different ways. Kant had three formulas of the categorical imperative. All three formulas are a different way of wording the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a moral law that has to apply to all rational beings, regardless of what ends they have.

The 1st formula is the "Universal Law Formula," which Kant said that every action has a maxim. Whenever you do anything there is some maxim, some subjective principle you are acting on and that we shouldn't act on any maxim that we couldn't choose to become a universal law. Kant then goes on to say that still for every action, in addition to its maxim, there is also an end, every action has an end. Mill and Aristotle also say this. Kant says if you have a categorical imperative there has to be an end that all rational beings see as a good end, this is mandatory. It can't be some kind of effect of our actions, because the kinds of things we produce in the phenomenal world only have value because we care about them. It has to be an end that all rational beings must care about; it can't be a utilitarian end, or one from consequences. If we value it as an end it has value, if we choose it as an end then there is a claim on others to see it as important as well, thus, this is a real mandatory end that humanity itself sees. Rational nature itself then has value.

The 2nd formula is "The Formula of Humanity" which states, I'm not just special because everyone thinks they are valuable. Can't treat other people as merely a means to an end. This gives one a claim to the help from other people. Slavery is an epitome of this formula as an example. It is wrong to treat people ONLY as a means to an end. (However, you are not using a grocery bagger as such because he gets paid). When you put the Universal Law Formula and Formula of Humanity together, you get another way of formulating the Categorical Imperative.

The 3rd Formula is "The Kingdom of Ends Formula." We ought to be thinking of ourselves as legislators for a kingdom of people who are ends to themselves and for Kant that is what we are doing when we are acting morally. We should only act on maxims that can be laws for a community (Kingdom) of rational beings. Thus, we are both subjects and sovereigns in this community, because we make our own laws and then we must obey them. This is the reason Kant thinks that the categorical imperative is binding on all of us because we impose it on ourselves and make the laws, not binding just because somebody might punish us if we disobey. We already accept the categorical imperative according to Kant without thinking about it. We end up with the ideas of autonomy and motivation. We end up with the idea that reason alone must be capable of motivating us to act a certain way which for Kant means we have autonomy (self rule), (motivated by reason as opposed to desires), which gives us free will. We can only be bound by moral laws if we have this kind of autonomy, if we are motivated by reason, if we have in a sense a free will. Kant thinks it goes in the other direction as well, if we have a free will then we are bound by the categorical imperative.

Thus, philosophers ask do we truly have free will? Also, to what extent are we moved by causation? Kant says laws govern causation. One type of law is Newton's laws of motion, scientific laws. Philosophers debate the question is human actions like these laws? Can we predict human actions? Do our desires cause us to act in certain ways; can our actions be predetermined? Some say yes. Aristotle calls this "efficient causation." Some call them "laws of natural necessity." Given the way the natural world works, things have to happen in a certain way and the world is governed by certain laws.

Kant says if we have a free will, then the laws that govern our choices are not going to be laws of natural necessity. If we have a free will, then our will or our practical reason will choose its own principles, its own laws to act on, and those will be the laws that will cause us to do certain things. If we have a free will, then our will chooses certain principles these must have form of a law for everyone; a universal law, this is the categorical imperative. Thus, for Kant, if we have free will then the categorical imperative is binding on us.

I recommend you read this work slowly and repeat key passages for better comprehension. Kant's work is a must for anyone interested in philosophy, and ethics.

3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Small pieces of a big puzzle, July 18, 2005

By 

Bruce P. Barten (Saint Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) (Paperback)

It is nice to be able to buy books from a publisher that believes in doing things right, even if the books might be a bit obscure for all the usual reasons. Having purchased the Great Books Volume 39 on Kant earlier this year, which was an economical collection that included his three most famous volumes as well as Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) and Preface and Introduction to the Metaphysical Elements of Ethics translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, which are works that Kant's THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS in the Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy does not include, it is interesting to see how these two books still manage to overlap.

The Great Books Kant includes a translation (1887) by W. Hastie of Kant's 1797 works General Introduction to the Metaphysic of Morals (pp. 383-394) and The Science of Right (pp. 395-458). This book contains Mary Gregor's translation of the same text on pages 1-124.

Since Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States in 1861-65, Americans have tended to think that everybody who was important to us would be living in the same country, and democracy would allow the majority to dictate the basic laws which everyone would have to adhere to. Kant has to come up with rules for wars between states that need to maintain a balance of power, but his result is to deny economic motives. "The reason there cannot be a war of subjugation is not that this extreme measure a state might use to achieve a condition of peace would in itself contradict the right of a state; it is rather that the idea of the right of nations involves only the concept of an antagonism in accordance with principles of outer freedom by which each can preserve what belongs to it, but not a way of acquiring, by which one state's increase of power could threaten others." (section 56, p. 117). A written constitution ought to be more powerful than treaties "which can be dissolved at any time, not a federation (like that of the American states) which is based on a constitution and can therefore not be dissolved." (section 61, p. 120).

Somehow Kant lacked the idea that heads of state would regularly be deprived of their rule and punished for official acts. "The sovereign can also take the ruler's authority away from him, depose him, or reform his administration. But it cannot punish him . . .; for punishment is, again, an act of the executive authority, which has the supreme capacity to exercise coercion in conformity with the law, and it would be self-contradictory for him to be subject to coercion." (section 49, p. 94). If the ultimate weapons wipe out life on the planet, we would find ourselves in a condition already imagined by Kant:

"Accordingly, every murderer--anyone who commits murder, orders it, or is an accomplice in it -- must suffer death; this is what justice, as the idea of judicial authority wills in accordance with universal laws that are grounded a priori. -- If, however, the number of accomplices (correi) to such deed is so great that the state, in order to have no such criminals in it, could soon find itself without subjects; and if the state still does not want to dissolve, that is, to pass over into the state of nature, which is far worse because there is no external justice at all in it (and if it especially does not want to dull the people's feeling by the spectacle of a slaughterhouse), then the sovereign must also have it in his power, in this case of necessity (casus necessitatis), to assume the role of judge (to represent him) and pronounce a judgment that decrees for the criminals a sentence other than capital punishment, such as deportation, which still preserves the population. This cannot be done in accordance with public law but it can be done by an executive decree that is, by an act of majesty which, as clemency, can always be exercised only in individual cases." (section 49, pp. 107-108).

Kant died over 200 years ago, unaware that economic interests could become so powerful that even the media would act as a single unit and find itself dedicated to perpetuating a power elite that could always, in each and every instance, join with leaders committed to mindlessly militaristic politics that used statistics on gross hyperconsumption to make itself fiscally worse than worthless, deporting jobs, cutting government programs to prepare for a lean and mean future in which worthless i.o.u.s would compete with other countries that still possessed natural resources and productive capacity, as if nothing could be better than to make democratic government as powerless as possible.

In a reply to a reviewer of Kant's book, Kant pointed out, "that there is a categorical imperative, Obey the authority who has power over you (in whatever does not conflict with inner morality) -- this is the offensive proposition called into question." (p. 136). Part II of this book, called Metaphysical First Principles of the Doctrine of Virtue (pp. 139-232), has a Preface in which, "Hence all doctrine of virtue, in lecture halls, from pulpits, or in popular books, also becomes ridiculous if it is decked out in scraps of metaphysics. --But it is not useless, much less ridiculous, to investigate in metaphysics . . ." (p. 141). Maxims and duty are discussed in the Introduction, along with "a categorical imperative of pure practical reason, and therefore an imperative which connects a concept of duty with that of an end in general." (p. 149). There are 53 sections and a conclusion on religion being beyond pure moral philosophy. The index on pages 235-241 has few names, but suggests a few pages to check for topics like hypocrisy and ridicule.