Kant's radical criticism of the passions has a central but largely overlooked moral-psychological component: for Kant, the passions promote a kind of self-deception he calls ‘rationalizing’. In analysing the connection between passion and rationalizing self-deception, I identify and reconstruct two essential traits of Kant's conception of the passions. I argue (1) that rationalizing self-deception, according to Kant, contributes massively to the emergence and consolidation of passions. It aims to resolve a psychological conflict between passion and moral duty when in fact, (...) it does not resolve but perpetuates this conflict. I then argue (2) that rationalizing does not necessarily aim to devalue moral duty, as Kant seems to suggest in the Groundwork. It can also aim to revalue the ‘counterweight’. By analysing Kant's presentation of several individual passions in the Anthropology, I demonstrate that rationalizing here is concerned with elevating these passions and making them pass as morally (or at least prudentially) justified. (shrink)

This study on Kant’s moral anthropology examines the conditions for achieving moral action, and strives to expand our understanding of Kantian moral philosophy. According to Kant, building moral character is not limited to developing rational capacities but also includes developing emotional capacities, and responsibly managing and deliberately cultivating emotional dispositions. / -/- Award: Förderpreis der Freiburger Kant-Stiftung und der Kant-Gesellschaft 2016 / -/- Anna Wehofsits’ Studie zu Kants moralischer Anthropologie untersucht die Realisierungsbedingungen moralischen Handelns. Die historische Rekonstruktion und systematische Diskussion (...) dieser Bedingungen zielt auf ein erweitertes Verständnis der Kantischen Ethik: Moralische Charakterbildung nach Kant ist nicht auf die Entwicklung rationaler Fähigkeiten beschränkt, sondern schließt die Entwicklung emotionaler Fähigkeiten ein, den verantwortlichen Umgang mit emotionalen Dispositionen und ihre gezielte Kultivierung. -/- . (shrink)

Unlike the question of whether self-deception can be understood on the model of other-deception, the relationship between the two phenomena at the level of practice is hardly ever explored. Other-deception can support self-deception and vice versa. Self-deception often affects not only the beliefs and behavior of the self-deceiving person but also the beliefs and behavior of others who may become accomplices of self-deception. As I will show, however, it is difficult to describe this supportive relationship between self-deception and the deception (...) of others without conceptual contradiction. While “deflationary” approaches offer a convincing way to avoid the so-called paradoxes of self-deception, they do not resolve the conceptual tensions that arise here. I conclude by outlining a solution. (shrink)

Selbsttäuschung scheint ein alltägliches Phänomen zu sein. Wir nehmen an Anderen wahr, wie sie mehr oder weniger bewusst einer Einsicht ausweichen, die sie nicht wahrhaben wollen, und die meisten von uns können sich an Situationen erinnern, in denen sie sich selbst etwas vorgemacht haben. Wir können also Beispiele für Selbsttäuschung benennen, unser begriffliches Verständnis von Selbsttäuschung aber ist diffus, und der Versuch, das Phänomen aus philosophischer Perspektive begrifflich genau zu fassen, führt leicht zu starken Spannungen, für die bis heute keine (...) allgemein akzeptierte Lösung gefunden wurde. Auch die Frage, wie Selbsttäuschung prudentiell und moralisch zu bewerten ist, ist kontrovers. (shrink)

Unlike the question of whether self-deception can be understood on the model of other-deception, the relationship between the two phenomena at the level of practice is hardly ever explored. Other-deception can support self-deception and vice versa. Self-deception often affects not only the beliefs and behavior of the self-deceiving person but also the beliefs and behavior of others who may become accomplices of self-deception. As I will show, however, it is difficult to describe this supportive relationship between self-deception and the deception (...) of others without conceptual contradiction. While “deflationary” approaches offer a convincing way to avoid the so-called paradoxes of self-deception, they do not resolve the conceptual tensions that arise here. I conclude by outlining a solution. (shrink)

According to Kant, building moral character is not limited to developing rational capacities but also includes developing emotional capacities as well as responsibly managing and deliberately cultivating emotional dispositions. Kant assigns central importance specifically to the cultivation of sympathy. This paper first distinguishes three levels on which sympathy is significant in Kant’s ethics. Referring to recent philosophical and psychological research, it then aims to reconstruct the process of cultivating sympathy in a way that is persuasive both as an interpretation of (...) Kant and as a systematic account. Contrary to what Kant’s brief comments on this process seem to suggest, cultivating sympathy does not consist in a mere stimulation of a natural emotional mechanism – this, I argue, would be inconsistent with central concerns of Kantian ethics. Rather, it consists in a morally motivated, reflexive transformation of a natural disposition that aims to make us responsive to the needs of others. (shrink)

Wer philosophiert, argumentiert. Der Band vereint Beiträge zur Argumentationstheorie, Erkenntnistheorie, Wissenschaftstheorie, Existenzphilosophie, Religionsphilosophie und Metaphilosophie. Er zeigt auf, dass auch theoretische Fragen von lebenspraktischer Bedeutung sind.

Habilitation thesis, book proposal in preparation.

In this article I discuss an ambivalent legacy central to Kant’s ethics: while Kant’s conception of autonomy and dignity emphasizes the equal moral consideration of all persons, it leads to the exclusion of people with cognitive disabilities, who are at best only indirectly morally considered. I analyze prominent attempts to overcome this problem through interpretative approaches and reform proposals within Kant’s ethics, and show their limitations. Finally, I argue for a relational and inclusive reinterpretation of autonomy and dignity.