Kant and Consequentialism in Context: The Second Critique’s Response to Pistorius

Bacin, S. 2001. “Die Lehre vom Begriff des Guten in der “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft””. In Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung. Akten des 9. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Ed. V. Gerhardt/R.-P. Horstmann/R. Schumacher. Berlin/New York, vol. III, 131–40.10.1515/9783110874129.1381Suche in Google Scholar

–. 2019. ““Under the Guise of the Good”: Kant and a Tenet of Moral Rationalism”. In Natur und Freiheit. Akten des 12. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Ed. V. Waibel et al. Berlin/Boston, vol. III, 1705–14.Suche in Google Scholar

Bader, R. M. 2015. “Kantian Axiology and the Dualism of Practical Reason”. In The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. Ed. I. Hirose/J. Olson. Oxford, 175–204.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199959303.013.0011Suche in Google Scholar

–. 2009. “Kant and the Categories of Freedom”. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 17(4), 799–820.10.1080/09608780903135121Suche in Google Scholar

Basaglia, F. 2016. “The Highest Good and the Notion of the Good as Object of Pure Practical Reason”. In The Highest Good in Kant’s Philosophy. Ed. T. Höwing. Berlin, 17–32.10.1515/9783110369007-005Suche in Google Scholar

Beck, L. W. 1960. A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago.Suche in Google Scholar

Beiser, F. C. 1987. The Fate of Reason. Cambridge, Mass.10.2307/j.ctv10vm0swSuche in Google Scholar

Bobzien, S. 1988. “Die Kategorien der Freiheit bei Kant”. In Kant: Analysen – Probleme – Kritik. Ed. H. Oberer/G. Seel, Würzburg, 193–220.Suche in Google Scholar

Broad, C. D. 1965. Five Types of Ethical Theory. Totowa, NJ.10.4324/9781315824154Suche in Google Scholar

Cummiskey, D. 1996. Kantian Consequentialism. Oxford.10.1093/0195094530.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Ebbinghaus, J. 1968. “Interpretation and Misinterpretation of the Categorical Imperative”. In Kant: A Collection of Essays. Ed. R. P. Wolff. London.10.1007/978-1-349-15263-6_11Suche in Google Scholar

Forschler, S. 2013. “Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics: The Gap Can Be Bridged”. Metaphilosophy 44(1/2), 88–104.10.1111/meta.12015Suche in Google Scholar

Freyenhagen, F. 2011. “Empty, Useless, and Dangerous? Recent Kantian Replies to the Empty Formalism Objection”. Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 63, 163–86.10.1017/S0263523200000215Suche in Google Scholar

Fuchs, A. E. 2006. “Mill’s Theory of Morally Correct Action”. In The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism. Ed. H. R. West. Oxford, 139–59.10.1002/9780470776483.ch10Suche in Google Scholar

Gesang, B. (ed.) 2007. Kants vergessener Rezensent: Die Kritik der theoretischen und praktischen Philosophie Kants in fünf frühen Rezensionen von Herman Andreas Pistorius. Hamburg.10.28937/978-3-7873-2052-3Suche in Google Scholar

Hare, R. M. 1997. Sorting Out Ethics. Oxford.10.1093/0198250320.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Heydt, C. 2014. “Utilitarianism before Bentham”. In The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. Ed. B. Eggleston/D. Miller. Cambridge, 16 – 37.10.1017/CCO9781139096737.002Suche in Google Scholar

Hruschka, J. 1991. “The Greatest Happiness Principle and Other Early German Anticipations of Utilitarian Theory”. Utilitas 3(2), 165–77.10.1017/S0953820800001096Suche in Google Scholar

Johnson, R./Cureton, A. 2016. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ Accessed Nov. 13, 2017.Suche in Google Scholar

Jodl, F. 1889. Die Geschichte der Ethik. Vol II. Stuttgart.Suche in Google Scholar

Kant, I. 1900–. Gesammelte Schriften (Akademie Ausgabe), vol. 1–22 ed. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 23 ed. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, vol. 24– ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Berlin.Suche in Google Scholar

Kleingeld, Pauline. 2017. “Contradiction and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law.” Kant-Studien 108(1), 89–115.10.1515/kant-2017-0006Suche in Google Scholar

Klemme, H. F. 2010. “The Origin and Aim of Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason”. In Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide. Ed. A. Reath/J. Timmerman. Cambridge, 11–30.10.1017/CBO9780511770869.003Suche in Google Scholar

Korsgaard, C. M. 1985. “Kant’s Formula of Universal Law.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66(1/2), 24–47.10.1017/CBO9781139174503.004Suche in Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. 1969. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X: Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society. Ed. J. M. Robson. Toronto.Suche in Google Scholar

O’Neill, O. 1989. Constructions of Reason. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781139173773Suche in Google Scholar

Parfit, D. 2011. On What Matters: Volume III. Oxford.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199572816.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Paton, H. J. 1946. The Categorical Imperative. Essex.Suche in Google Scholar

Pieper, A. 2002. “Zweites Haupstück (57–71)”. In Immanuel Kant: Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. Ed. O. Höffe. Berlin, 115–34.10.1524/9783050050317.115Suche in Google Scholar

Pistorius, H. A. 1786. “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten von Immanuel Kant. Riga, bey Hartknoch. 1785. 8. 128 S.” Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek Bd. 22, St. 2, 447–63.Suche in Google Scholar

Reath, A. 2015. “Did Kant Hold that Rational Volition is Sub Ratione Boni”. In Reason, Value, and Respect: Kantian Themes from the Philosophy of Thomas E. Hill, Jr. Ed. M. Timmons/R. M. Johnson. Oxford, 232–55.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199699575.003.0013Suche in Google Scholar

Reath, A./Timmermann, J. (eds.) 2010. Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511770869.003Suche in Google Scholar

Rohs, P. 1995. “Warum Kant kein Utilitarist war”. In Zum moralischen Denken. Vol. 2. Ed. C. Fehige/G. Meggle. Frankfurt, 35–41.Suche in Google Scholar

Sala, G. B. 2004. Kants “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft”: Ein Kommentar. Darmstadt.Suche in Google Scholar

Scheffler, S. (ed.) 1988. Consequentialism and its Critics. Oxford.Suche in Google Scholar

Schopenhauer, A. 2010. The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics. Trans./ed. C. Janaway. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511581298.007Suche in Google Scholar

Sensen, O. 2015. “Moral Obligation and Free Will”. In Kant’s Lectures on Ethics: A Critical Guide. Ed. L. Denis/O. Sensen. Cambridge, 138–55.10.1017/CBO9781139567527.012Suche in Google Scholar

–. 2011. Kant on Human Dignity. Berlin.10.1515/9783110267167Suche in Google Scholar

Simmel, G. 1904. Kant. Leipzig.Suche in Google Scholar

Singer, M. 1961. Generalization in Ethics. New York.Suche in Google Scholar

Timmermann, J. 2015. “What’s Wrong with Deontology?” In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Vol. 115, No. 1 pt. 1. London, 75–92.10.1111/j.1467-9264.2015.00385.xSuche in Google Scholar

–. 2014. “Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism”. In The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. Ed. B. Eggleston/D. Miller. Cambridge, 239–57.10.1017/CCO9781139096737.013Suche in Google Scholar

–. 2005. “Why Kant Could not Have Been a Utilitarian.” Utilitas 17(3), 243–64.10.1017/S0953820805001639Suche in Google Scholar

Tittel, G. A. 1786. Ueber Herrn Kant’s Moralreform. Frankfurt/Leipzig.Suche in Google Scholar

Walschots, M. 2017. “Kant on Moral Satisfaction”. Kantian Review 22(2), 281–303.10.1017/S136941541700005XSuche in Google Scholar

West, H. R. 2007. Mill’s Utilitarianism: A Reader’s Guide. London.Suche in Google Scholar

Westra, A. 2016. The Typic in Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Berlin.10.1515/9783110455939Suche in Google Scholar

Zimmermann, S. 2011. Kants ‘Kategorien der Freiheit’. Berlin.10.1515/9783110272338Suche in Google Scholar

–. (ed.) 2016. Die “Kategorien der Freiheit” in Kants praktischer Philosophie: Historischsystematische Beiträge. Berlin.10.1515/9783110491135Suche in Google Scholar