Current issue

The topics of this issue, devoted to the tercentenary of Immanuel Kant’s birth, focus on his practical philosophy, most notably on the problems of free will in the light of the debates at the end of the eighteenth century; on the concept of human dignity and its reflection in daily life and in the main legal documents of the Russian Federation; on the possibility of deriving positive duties from the categorical imperative; and on the relevance of Kantian ethics to modern-day realities. The issue of the reception of Kant’s philosophy in Russia is also discussed, using as an example the article by Russian religious philosopher Alexey Vvedensky in the historical context of Kant’s early reception and subsequent fate in the twentieth century.

Kant’s solution for the problem of freedom of the will rests on his transcendental idealism and its differentiation of appearances and things in themselves. Human beings, with their bodies and observable inner and outer activities, are objects of perception (empirical intuition) and therefore appearances. These are only the appearances of their noumenal selves. Human beings are determined by laws of nature in all their perceivable alterations which include all their actions, but their noumenal selves, not being in time, are not determined by the necessity of causal laws of nature, but can be determined by the moral law of their pure practical reason which they give to themselves. The actions of the will, observable volitions and external actions, can therefore, at the same time, be under the necessitating law of nature, i.e. be unfree, and, as appearances of the self-determination of their noumenal will (by fulfilling the demands of the moral law), be free. Two professors of Jena University, Ulrich and Schmid, accept part of Kant’s transcendental idealism but contend that the many transgressions of the moral law in human acting must have their noumenal reason in the agent’s intelligible character or in the intelligible substrate of nature. This theory is called “intelligible fatalism”.

Although Kant was born three hundred years ago, his practical philosophy is still relevant and helpful for understanding difficult and crucial issues of today. One example is the strange transformation the concept of human dignity has undergone in post-Soviet Russia — in everyday language, in ideological doctrines, and in legal documents. While in ordinary life dignity is increasingly reduced to access to material benefits, in its legal sense — above all in the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation — anti-communist ideology has turned it into the “right” to enjoy comfortable living conditions, being almost totally divorced from duties and from morality. Such interpretations of human dignity lead to a dead end, creating problems for its perception and for its relationship to other constitutional provisions — problems that are impossible to resolve in the framework of such an interpretation of right. By turning to Kant, one of the pillars of the modern egalitarian universalist conception of human dignity, we can trace the idea of personal dignity back to its origin as an absolute inner value which, unlike external material benefits, has no equivalent, and involves self-legislation, restriction of freedom, and the fulfilling of moral duty.

On the eve of the tercentenary of Kant’s birth, just as it was a hundred years ago, Kantianism is simultaneously on the receiving end of the blows of history and attacks by rival philosophical parties, both progressivist and reactionary. The radical wings of both parties perceive modernity as a depressing, nauseating period which must be broken with by moving toward the past or toward the future. One of the most original and profound diagnoses of this attitude was offered by Hans Jonas, who discerned in radical doctrines of a hundred years ago a similarity with the gnosticism of antiquity. Jonas’s diagnosis has not lost its relevance. That is why the central question addressed in this study is as follows: what prescription does the Kantian programme offer for modernity’s “gnostic dizziness?” I maintain that Kant’s critical turn is still an effective strategy by means of which to compensate for the sudden stresses and “gnostic impulses” provoked by the modern worldview revolution, bringing back an “orientation in thinking” which reorients the world process and individual activity. The imperative to always see and respect humanity in a particular individual warns against the “category mistake” committed by modern radicals who ascribe agency (subjectivity) to non-­human abstractions which cannot possess this property. In theory, Kant grounds the view that humanity should resign itself to the fact of its perspective being limited and local. Kantian practical philosophy provides the traveler with a map of regulative ideas and a “moral compass”, along with an explanation of disruptive factors, offering a working explanation of the situation and its possible outcomes. Kant’s “Copernican revolution” brings human beings back into focus and imagination to order, allowing for the hope that new challenges will be successfully met.

Despite the popularity of many of Kant’s ethical notions, such as autonomy, dignity and respect for persons, there is a perception, even among Kant scholars themselves, that one cannot reliably derive concrete duties from Kant’s moral philosophy. Against this, I shall argue that — properly understood — Kant’s ethics is of prime importance even today. I shall argue that Kant’s preferred procedure is actually the way we develop new ethical rules during the recent Coronavirus pandemic. In order to demonstrate this, I shall first reflect on how we came up with ethical rules such as keeping six feet of distance, wearing a mask, or restricting the number of people who can occupy a room at the same time. I shall then give the reasons why I do not follow the standard interpretations of how one derives concrete duties from Kant’s main formulation of the Categorical Imperative or the Formula of Humanity. Finally, I shall present the textual evidence that Kant proposes a method like the one we use today during a pandemic, and argue that this alternative interpretation can deal much better with the main objections that are commonly levelled against the standard interpretation of Kant’s procedure to derive concrete duties from the Categorical Imperative.

According to the positive duties objection, it is not possible to derive positive duties from Kant’s Formula of Universal Law (FUL). However, in his recent “Deriving Positive Duties from Kant’s Formula of Universal Law”, Guus Duindam tries to answer this objection. More specifically, Duindam tries to show how both a duty of benevolence and a duty of self-perfection can be derived from the FUL. I critically examine Duindam’s arguments. I maintain that Duindam’s argument for the positive duty of benevolence is ambiguous and that this ambiguity exposes him to a fatal dilemma: on one horn, Duindam faces the same objection that he concedes to be effective against other attempts to answer the positive duties objection; on the other horn, the procedure he recommends cannot be based on the FUL (because it does not evaluate actions on the basis of their corresponding maxims). In addition, I maintain that Duindam’s benevolence argument rests on a procedure that is, in general, intractable and, in this particular case, foredoomed (because it can be shown that there are no positive duties of the kind he tries to derive). From there, I turn to Duindam’s argument for the positive duty of self-perfection. I explain that Duindam’s derivation of the duty of self-perfection, even if successful, does not answer the positive duties objection. This is because Duindam never appeals to the FUL in his derivation of the duty of self-perfection (the derivation is based, rather, on instrumental reasoning from the second-order end to accomplish our first-order ends). I elaborate on this by comparing and contrasting Duindam’s argument with Oliver Sensen’s interpretation of how to apply the FUL in the latter’s recent “Universal Law and Poverty Relief”.

In 1904, the last January issue of the newspaper “Moskoskiye vedomosti” carried an article by Alexey I. Vvedensky, philosopher and theologian, Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, entitled “The Great Rationalist. On the Centenary of Kant’s Death”. Although the publication could hardly be called unique for its time, as many Russian philosophers and journalists commented on this date, the article merits attention because of the way it represents Kant, and the fact that it sheds light on Vvedensky’s attitudes toward Kantian philosophy. Alexey Vvedensky is to this day a little-known figure in the history of Russian philosophy, such that I thought it would be helpful to preface the publication with a review of the landmarks in the Russian philosopher’s intellectual biography. I go on to demonstrate the ambivalent character of Vvedensky’s attitudes toward Kant’s philosophy. To this end, I show that the Russian philosopher, on one hand, calls for a “return to the universally acclaimed Kant”, whose genius he unreservedly recognises; and on the other hand, he argues that Kant should not only be studied and profoundly reflected on, but also overcome because his rationalism “has desiccated the thought of the new cultured humanity”.