Kant typically found in secondary literature. By introducing a discussion of the typic Dietrichson ably constructs content relevant to CI, although comes at the cost of potentially sacrificing adherence to universal moral law. If duty is only an approximation, and moral law always must be modified to be relevant, then one can never hope to attain actual morality in some direct and total sense nor actually grasp universality.
Steinberger’s critique of O'Neill’s explanation of a ‘normal and predictable’ circumstance and the subsequent limits of CI successfully postulates a strong position drawing directly on Kant regarding the limitations of CI. However, like O'Neill and Paton’s early thought, Steinberger fails to establish a categorical basis
…show more content…
This attempt, with some regret, does not gain sufficient attention among contemporary commentators so that Kant’s ethics have been characterized as formalistic because critics have drawn on textual sources rather than applying non-formal theory to fully comprehend his intention. Without being able to address the original context that the critiques quote, Kantian morality, as a whole, will be unable to claim that it speaks of and informs actions, leaving it as an empty formalism.
In response to the criticisms directed at Kant’s ethics, this paper will first explain the background of the emptiness argument. Then, after addressing the contemporary rereading of the emptiness argument including the doctrines of formalists and non-formalists, I will conclude with a systematic interpretation of Kantian value realism including its applications and conclusions. Kant’s philosophical search arrives at his conception of moral law moving from the theoretical basis to the practical approach, not the practical approach to heretical