Abstract

IT IS COMMON for critics of Kant's ethical theory to point out that he presents a distinctly ahistorical conception of the structure of moral experience and to conclude that this evident lack of historical understanding seriously vitiates his attempt to grasp the "universal" principles of morality. This objection is generally supported by an appeal to the evidence supplied by the study of anthropology and history. Both of these disciplines attest to the wide variety of moral codes and beliefs that characterize different societies at different periods in their history; moreover, they confirm the possibility of significant innovation and development in the conceptual schemes that are embodied in respective moralities. In light of this diversity the Kantian program of analyzing the invariant presuppositions contained in the "moral knowledge of ordinary human reason" may be considered misguided, because it neglects the internal connection between historically specific cultural practices and "ordinary" moral convictions.