673:
While this account satisfies some scholars (e.g. Barbara Herman), others (e.g. Christine
Korsgaard) resist the claim that never keeping promises is logically inconsistent with making them because one can imagine (although perhaps with difficulty) a world where everyone makes and accepts promises and is then always surprised and disappointed when no one keeps them. People in this world would be perhaps foolish or irrational, but not impossible. Those who resist the logical contradiction view, propose an alternative, often called the practical contradiction view. This view is based on position, often called the principle of hypothetical imperatives, adopted by Kant earlier in the Groundwork:
693:
required to help others. But as Kant realizes, we all have more than just this end - whatever our ends may be they must involve more than merely the desire to avoid helping others - and our other ends, whatever they may be, will most likely require the aid of others if they are to be achieved. A will which adopted such ends and then adopted a maxim certain to deprive itself of one indispensable means to acheive these ends would violate the principle of hypothetical imperatives expressed above. Here the pratical contradiction is not contained in the maxim itself, but rather in a will, which presumably contains both this maxim and other ends.
669:
How does this give rise to a contradiction? Well, consider what is meant by the word promise? Definitions may differ, but at a minimum, promising must involve a commitment to do something that is ordinarily kept. In our imaginary world, however, there is no promising at all under this definition, since the commitments made in promises are never kept. The idea is that the practice of promising can only exist where most people keep their promises. In a world where no one does, it would not make sense to speak of promising at all - in such a world the words "I promise" would be empty and meaningless.
680:
never succeed in securing one money. Thus, the universalization of (2) involves a profound irrationality or contradiction - one adopts a course of action that one knows is certain not to achieve one's ends. Here it seems plausible to say that some one who claims to have adopted an end and yet chooses means he knows will not achieve it must be contradicting himself - either he hasn't really adopted the end, or he doesn't think the proposed means will be unsuccessful.
249:
233:
217:
201:
305:
749:
section on lying. It doesn't matter to Kant if you will a lie only in cases that it is beneficient overall - lying denies autonomy from a person and thus also denies their human dignity. It violates all the formulas Kant gives in description of the CI. Not only that, but to even consider it true that lying only in cases where it is beneficient overall is to sneak empirical propositions into a priori principles.
665:"Some actions are of such a character that their maxim cannot without contradiction be even conceived as a universal law of nature, far from it being possible that we should will that it should be so. In others this intrinsic impossibility is not found, but still it is impossible to will that their maxim should be raised to the universality of a law of nature, since such a will would contradict itself."
395:
371:
295:
277:
686:"If now we attend to ourselves on occasion of any transgression of duty, we shall find that we in fact do not will that our maxim should be a universal law, for that is impossible for us; on the contrary, we will that the opposite should remain a universal law, only we assume the liberty of making an exception in our own favour or (just for this time only) in favour of our inclination."
405:
33:
103:
64:
113:
511:
is wrong is because one cannot universalize it (you might honestly say "I wish to steal", but not "I wish everyone would steal constantly, including stealing from me"). Of course if destroying civilization is okay with you, you might be able to universalize such a maxim, but I don't think he seriously considered that as an option. --
587:
influences is irrational to the identification of immorality with irrationality we have to connect morality to freedom. The only connection I have found is the statement, "But freedom, for Kant, also means adhering to the moral law -- having ones will determined not, as above, externally, but only by its own nature."
739:
The article claims that the Golden Rule is flawed in a case where you yourself want to be humiliated, for you still should not humiliate someone else etc. I think this claim of flaw is flawed. One just has to think a little deeper and realize that if one wants to be humiliated then he is getting what
497:
I'm pretty sure the
Categorical Imperative isn't supposed to depend on an assumption that destroying civilisation is wrong - I've always been under the impression that it stems from a desire for a sort of logical consistency in one's actions. e.g. Stealing is wrong, because it denies the existence of
668:
The first type of contradiction arises when it is inconceivable that a maxim could be a universal law of nature. To see what is meant by this, try to imagine a world where everyone followed (2). Kant suggests that in such a world, no one would take promises seriously, since they would never kept.
970:
Sounds like Sam D is the person to write the section on CI, then. Ordering of sections: actually, I intended it roughly to follow Kant's order. Tasks of groundwork = preface, Duty = chapter 1, CI and
Autonomy = chapter 2, free will = chapter 3. There's a question here about what exactly the article
932:
formulas: the
Formual of the Universal Law (Kant 1785, 421), the Formula of the Law of Nature (Kant 1785, 422), the Forumula of the End in Itself (Kant 1785, 429), the Formula of Autonomy (Kant 1785, 431), and the Formula of the Kindom of Ends (Kant 1785, 433) While some appear to overlap or mimic
748:
This article is in grave need of repair. I will hopefully be able to devote some time to it this week, but any help would be wonderful. It reads as if it were copied, sloppily, from an unacademic secondary source. In addition to that, parts of it are just plain wrong. Case in point, examine the
597:
If it means that adhering to moral law is a condition of freedom, then the conclusion above does not seem to follow. It is true that, if I behave immorally in this instance I lack autonomy and therefore am behaving irrationally. But coming from the other direction, perhaps in some instance I have
586:
The argument shows that sometimes we lack autonomy—that is, by a certain definition of freedom we act under outside influences and so lack freedom. And, from there, by a certain definition of rationality we would be acting irrationally. But in order to go from the notion that acting under outside
545:
I also think that this article should be moved to "Grounding for the
Metaphysics of morals" since, at least in English where this article is written ;), the most common title is the Grounding. I will have someone move it over later if there are no objections, and have this page redirect to our new
510:
those actions are wrong: he considers it (perhaps as a premise) logically impossible that any rational person would want to destroy civilization, and thus impossible to truly hold a maxim that would result in that (like a maxim that lying is acceptable). So I think the reason he would say stealing
672:
The contradiction may still be unclear. To be precise, the universalization of (2) assumes the existence of a working practice of promising (otherwise one could not get money on the basis of promises) but then asserts conditions logically inconsistent with that practice (never keeping promises).
679:
The idea here is that to adopt some end is, by defintion, to choose effective means to that end. But if we universalize (2) it becomes aparent that anyone acting on it would be violating this requirement: if no one kept their promises, no one would take promises seriously, and so promising would
559:
The argument beginns by explaining the categorical imperative, which basically states that a maxim must be universalizable. However, I don't think it is necessary to explain the categorical imperative in this article, since there is a separate article named "categorical imperative" doing just the
696:
It is important to note here that Kant is not claiming that maxims like (1) - (4) are irrational or that one is irrational to act on them. It may be that these maxims are quite beneficial to those who adopt them. Kant's point is that (1) - (4) would be irrational if everyone adopted them. The
692:
The second type of contradiction is described a contradiction in the will. The idea here is that some maxims could be universally adopted by all agents without immediate contradiction. If, for example, everyone were to follow a maxim like (4), they could consistently avoid the time and expense
989:
as it contained what appeared to be interpretations about Kant's work that were outside of the scope of the
Groundwork. I have added a new section on cases. I have reordered the remaining sections. I have done some copy-editing, general rewording and rearranging hopefully to improve readability
661:
Next, one must consider whether one could will these maxims to be universal laws. There is some dispute among scholars as to what this means. As a first approximation, we can consider a distinction Kant himself draws between two ways in which a maxim can fail to satisfy the universalizability
1075:
Well, generally we prefer the most common
English name, and most of those English names are more common (in English) than using the original German title directly. The trick is that no one of them is overwhelmingly dominant. I do agree that we should probably use one that is more common in the
844:
was first published in 1785 (although Gregor has also translated it, as ...MetaphysicS...). More generally, the article definitely needs work, and I'd be happy to take a part in doing it. I suggest that the first job is to decide on an ordered division into sections. A first go at that:
611:
No, moral law is that we act consistently with the condition of freedom. A free being may still choose to act according to a particular interest, and despite this, he would still be a free being. But he would be behaving irrationally, according to Kant. Does that answer your question?
645:
I think the discussion of the categorical imperative could use some improvement. First it must be made clear that it is a constraint on maxims of action, that is proposals to act in certain ways under certain circumstances to achieve certain ends. Kant proposes as examples:
898:, and leave as much elaboration as possible to other relevant articles linked inside the sections. As far as the order of divisions, I think it may be a better idea to follow Kant's own format (preface and three sections) as there are already separate articees for the
560:
same. Why don't we just delete all that and improve the discussion of the examples given in the groundwork? Actually, these examples have been disputed over and over again among philosophers. Therefore, it seems appropriate to introduce them here! Kilian
Klaiber
1064:
It seems to me that wikipedia shouldn't be favoring any of the multitude of translations of the title, and even if we were to assume one of these, it probably shouldn't be for a translation that is almost 60-years old that most scholars don't use anymore.
1255:
I have added this article to B class. The reason is that it has a lot of good content and is fairly well referenced. However, there is still significant room for the addition of new material and references and therefore does not fulfil GA class.
971:
should be. Is it an analytic account of the central claims and arguments of the book, or is it more like a plot summary, closely following Kant's own arrangement of the material? I prefer the first, which is what I was aiming for above. Cheers,
541:
I added a lot of stuff, i have a back up if you want to play around with it. However, it maybe a good idea to post here beforehand any problems with wording since a lot of my language was exact as I was doing a logical arguement.
952:
593:
If it means the two are identical, this of course is a nontrivial statement. It would make the argument clearer to say something about this. I don't think the reader should be expected to accept it without some justification.
883:
Not so sure about the last two sections, to be honest: done properly, they might turn into a history of the last two hundred years of ethics, and swamp the rest of the article. Any thoughts on that or on the rest of it? Cheers,
568:
Isn't it a good idea to add information about Abbott's translation called
Fundamental Principles of... in addition to Paton's? After all the link to the e-text is to Abbott's. Might lead to confusion... Right? Or am I wrong?
598:
adhered to moral law, but failed to meet another condition of freedom. This would mean that I lack autonomy but have behaved morally. Hence, I have behaved morally but irrationally. Identity has not been established.
658:(4) "Let everyone be as happy as Heaven pleases, or as be can make himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do not wish to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in distress!"
1091:
Hi, I don't know how to move pages or change page titles/links, but it seems wrong that the title of this page uses 'Metaphysic' as opposed to 'Metaphysics'. 'Metaphysic' without '–s' is virtually never used.
676:"Whoever wills the end, wills also (so far as reason decides his conduct) the means in his power which are indispensably necessary thereto. This proposition is, as regards the volition, analytical..."
208:
74:
788:
OK, I see that. But what (English) published materials refer to it as the "Metaphysic" and not the "Metaphysics"? The
Cambridge University Press edition, trans by Mary Gregor, has it as the
1360:
1295:
1300:
1340:
1028:
134:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
1290:
1023:
806:
758:
On a similar note, shouldn't there be an 's' in the title of this page, there are already redirects working to move it to 'metaphysic' - this strikes me as incorrect. -
538:
Hello, I took out a lot of crap from this article that was discussed above, the crap about the basis of morality being that of the non destruction of civilzation.
224:
78:
1345:
171:
1310:
697:
question asked by the categorical imperative is therefore not, is it rational to adopt this maxim? but rather, could it be rational for everyone to adopt it?
1285:
161:
1335:
475:
702:
256:
240:
86:
82:
990:
without removing or altering content too much; this includes a rewording of the introduction. I have also tidied up the references. In the spirit of
1370:
1325:
1315:
1043:
1018:
583:
I'm probably missing something, but the statement "Immorality, then, is simply and deeply irrationality" does not seem to follow from the argument.
465:
1080:
seems to be the most common title used by new English translations published in the past 10 years (both the Zweig and Wood translations use it). --
136:
1053:
1038:
1033:
683:
As Kant perceptively notes, (2) can escape practical contradition only if most people don't follow it, that is only if it is not universalized:
1048:
325:
1375:
1305:
1099:
1009:
809:
article. No matter how wrong the published translation is, we're supposed to automatically accept it over the obviously correct translation.
649:(1) "From self-love I adopt it as a principle to shorten my life when its longer duration is likely to bring more evil than satisfaction."
427:
1280:
715:
590:
This could mean two things: that freedom is the same as adhering to moral law, or that a condition of freedom is adhering to moral law.
1355:
1330:
329:
126:
69:
1365:
451:
652:(2) "When I think myself in want of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that I never can do so."
1320:
1249:, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
418:
376:
894:
I agree, I think that a Criticisms and Significance/Influences sections would have to be carefully edited to stick only to the
44:
1350:
319:
282:
900:
1225:
1117:
I am inclined to agree with the comment above. I have amended the first sentence to try and clear matters up a bit! --
553:
I'd go with Groundwork instead of Grounding - the normal translation is H.J. Paton's, and it goes with Groundwork. --
1103:
711:
50:
866:
Categorical imperatives (1: the formula of universal law; 2. ends not means; 3. kingdom of ends - summary of
655:(3) "o indulge in pleasure rather than to take pains in enlarging and improving happy natural capacities."
1095:
17:
1221:
1208:
905:
867:
724:
570:
506:
I think you're correct on this. He does talk about actions that destroy civilization, but that's not the
707:
1260:
1229:
1130:
1107:
1084:
1069:
998:
975:
959:
937:
888:
813:
800:
782:
762:
753:
733:
635:
618:
605:
573:
426:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
824:
Hello folks. For whatever it's worth, I suspect that many English-speaking readers, like me, will know
554:
740:
he wants and 'that' is what should be practiced in relation to others, giving others what they want.
547:
333:
32:
1066:
731:
633:
616:
519:
I don't think it's true that every Western culture bases its morality on these principles, either.
337:
118:
457:
1126:
1246:
629:
The language in this article is excessively colloquial and reads like a personal essay. --
498:
property rights, which therefore denies one's own right to property. And so on. Thoughts?
1268:
Last edited at 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
836:(1948). Presumably that's why the article has the title it does. Incidentally, the 1797
723:
You have some interesting points. Maybe you'd like to have a look at the article on the
972:
934:
885:
797:
759:
750:
728:
630:
613:
410:
248:
232:
216:
200:
1274:
1081:
956:
810:
779:
520:
512:
304:
528:
499:
310:
933:
others, each has a place in his deduction and they work to support each other. -
1257:
1118:
995:
602:
1144:
400:
394:
370:
300:
131:
108:
921:
601:
I’m sure I’ve missed an important point. Any clarification is appreciated.
727:
and comment there? In general I agree that this article needs some work. --
294:
276:
1212:
1058:
and, perhaps also, each of these preceded by the definite article, 'The'.
953:
Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
917:
913:
994:
I have removed both maintenance tags. Any comments please paste here. --
423:
130:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
324:. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can
1198:
1189:
689:
For Kant, this type of reasoning is the hallmark of immoral conduct.
102:
63:
1012:, and creating (or confirming) redirects at each of the following:
662:
requirement. After discussing the maxims listed above, he notes:
909:
860:(vindication of ordinary morality; critique of practical reason)
460:
in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
456:
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
26:
247:
231:
215:
199:
1174:
I would like to propose a change to the entire three words:
792:
and the Hacket edition trans by James Ellington, has it as
1241:
1147:
1242:
Talk:Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals/Comments
422:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1029:
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics
947:An article that specifically "stick(s) only to the
182:
1024:Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Ethics
807:The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures
1361:C-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
1296:High-importance philosophical literature articles
1217:May I please know what do you all think about it?
1245:, and are posted here for posterity. Following
336:. To improve this article, please refer to the
1239:The comment(s) below were originally left at
928:Oh - and I would also like to include Kant's
794:Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785
8:
1301:Philosophical literature task force articles
140:about philosophy content on Knowledge (XXG).
18:Talk:Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
1341:High-importance Modern philosophy articles
1215:and this could lead into misunderstanding.
365:
332:. To use this banner, please refer to the
271:
179:
58:
1291:B-Class philosophical literature articles
564:Groundwork of - Fundamental Principles of
1078:Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
1044:Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
1019:Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals
330:discuss matters related to book articles
1054:Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
1039:Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals
1034:Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals
367:
338:relevant guideline for the type of work
273:
60:
30:
1049:Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
834:Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
776:Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
146:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Philosophy
1346:Modern philosophy task force articles
1010:Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten
772:Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten
7:
1311:High-importance metaphysics articles
1197:with a nice hyperlink to the "(...)
416:This article is within the scope of
316:This article is within the scope of
124:This article is within the scope of
1286:High-importance Philosophy articles
1150:taken place about three months ago:
805:I'm having the same problem at the
436:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Germany
49:It is of interest to the following
1336:B-Class Modern philosophy articles
458:project-independent quality rating
25:
1247:several discussions in past years
1207:it is sounding to me as a double
1201:(...)" english wikipedia article.
346:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Books
1179:"(...) much less readable (...)"
1139:Change proposals on article text
1008:I recommend moving this page to
873:Autonomy, morality and free will
403:
393:
369:
303:
293:
275:
111:
101:
62:
31:
1371:Mid-importance Germany articles
1326:High-importance ethics articles
1316:Metaphysics task force articles
470:This article has been rated as
166:This article has been rated as
149:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
938:17:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
889:16:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
814:01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
801:20:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
783:17:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
763:06:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
754:04:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
636:19:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
619:19:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
1261:21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
1155:"(...) much less read (...)"
1085:18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
999:16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
606:04:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
430:and see a list of open tasks.
1376:WikiProject Germany articles
1306:B-Class metaphysics articles
1230:08:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
901:Critique of Practical Reason
734:01:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
439:Template:WikiProject Germany
1281:B-Class Philosophy articles
976:09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
960:02:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
790:Metaphysics of Morals, 1797
1392:
1356:WikiProject Books articles
1331:Ethics task force articles
1219:Thanks for your attention.
1070:16:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
985:I have removed section on
876:Significance and influence
828:in Paton's translation as
476:project's importance scale
349:Template:WikiProject Books
172:project's importance scale
1254:
1131:13:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
1108:21:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
718:) 00:13, 16 October 2005.
550:17:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
469:
455:
388:
288:
255:
239:
223:
207:
178:
165:
96:
57:
1366:C-Class Germany articles
523:19:27, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
502:19:22 28 May 2003 (UTC)
209:Philosophical literature
1321:B-Class ethics articles
574:22:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
531:19:32, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
493:Destroying civilisation
183:Associated task forces:
987:proof of the moral law
906:Categorical imperative
868:Categorical imperative
725:categorical imperative
641:Categorical Imperative
515:00:09 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
252:
236:
220:
204:
127:WikiProject Philosophy
39:This article is rated
1351:B-Class Book articles
1165:"(...) much less read
1076:present day, though.
840:is a different book:
838:Metaphysics of Morals
251:
235:
219:
203:
43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1143:Following professor
879:Prominent criticisms
774:which translates to
705:comment was added by
1209:linguistic negation
419:WikiProject Germany
152:Philosophy articles
1235:Assessment comment
981:Major edit 13 Feb
253:
237:
221:
205:
137:general discussion
45:content assessment
1266:
1265:
1222:Maurice Carbonaro
1098:comment added by
770:Kant's title was
719:
625:Original research
571:Benjaminmyklebust
490:
489:
486:
485:
482:
481:
364:
363:
360:
359:
320:WikiProject Books
270:
269:
266:
265:
262:
261:
257:Modern philosophy
119:Philosophy portal
16:(Redirected from
1383:
1252:
1251:
1244:
1123:
1110:
698:
444:
443:
442:Germany articles
440:
437:
434:
413:
408:
407:
406:
397:
390:
389:
384:
381:
373:
366:
354:
353:
350:
347:
344:
326:join the project
313:
308:
307:
297:
290:
289:
279:
272:
190:
180:
154:
153:
150:
147:
144:
121:
116:
115:
114:
105:
98:
97:
92:
89:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
27:
21:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1271:
1270:
1240:
1237:
1141:
1119:
1100:155.245.120.253
1093:
1006:
983:
853:in Kant's oevre
746:
643:
627:
581:
566:
548:ShaunMacPherson
495:
441:
438:
435:
432:
431:
409:
404:
402:
382:
379:
351:
348:
345:
342:
341:
309:
302:
188:
168:High-importance
151:
148:
145:
142:
141:
117:
112:
110:
91:High‑importance
90:
72:
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1389:
1387:
1379:
1378:
1373:
1368:
1363:
1358:
1353:
1348:
1343:
1338:
1333:
1328:
1323:
1318:
1313:
1308:
1303:
1298:
1293:
1288:
1283:
1273:
1272:
1264:
1263:
1236:
1233:
1220:
1218:
1216:
1202:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1140:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1112:
1111:
1088:
1087:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1051:
1046:
1041:
1036:
1031:
1026:
1021:
1005:
1002:
982:
979:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
926:
925:
881:
880:
877:
874:
871:
864:
861:
854:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
786:
745:
742:
737:
736:
708:141.161.127.75
701:The preceding
642:
639:
626:
623:
622:
621:
580:
577:
565:
562:
533:
532:
517:
516:
494:
491:
488:
487:
484:
483:
480:
479:
472:Mid-importance
468:
462:
461:
454:
448:
447:
445:
428:the discussion
415:
414:
411:Germany portal
398:
386:
385:
383:Mid‑importance
374:
362:
361:
358:
357:
355:
315:
314:
298:
286:
285:
280:
268:
267:
264:
263:
260:
259:
254:
244:
243:
238:
228:
227:
222:
212:
211:
206:
196:
195:
193:
191:
185:
184:
176:
175:
164:
158:
157:
155:
123:
122:
106:
94:
93:
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1388:
1377:
1374:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1364:
1362:
1359:
1357:
1354:
1352:
1349:
1347:
1344:
1342:
1339:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1324:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1312:
1309:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1294:
1292:
1289:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1276:
1269:
1262:
1259:
1253:
1250:
1248:
1243:
1234:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1200:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1168:
1164:
1158:
1157:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1138:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1122:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1068:
1057:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1037:
1035:
1032:
1030:
1027:
1025:
1022:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1011:
1004:Proposed move
1003:
1001:
1000:
997:
993:
988:
980:
978:
977:
974:
961:
958:
954:
950:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
936:
931:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
902:
897:
893:
892:
891:
890:
887:
878:
875:
872:
869:
865:
862:
859:
855:
852:
848:
847:
846:
843:
839:
835:
831:
830:The Moral Law
827:
815:
812:
808:
804:
803:
802:
799:
795:
791:
787:
784:
781:
777:
773:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
761:
756:
755:
752:
743:
741:
735:
732:
730:
726:
722:
721:
720:
717:
713:
709:
706:
704:
694:
690:
687:
684:
681:
677:
674:
670:
666:
663:
659:
656:
653:
650:
647:
640:
638:
637:
634:
632:
624:
620:
617:
615:
610:
609:
608:
607:
604:
599:
595:
591:
588:
584:
579:Non-sequitor?
578:
576:
575:
572:
563:
561:
557:
556:
551:
549:
543:
539:
536:
530:
526:
525:
524:
522:
514:
509:
505:
504:
503:
501:
492:
477:
473:
467:
464:
463:
459:
453:
450:
449:
446:
429:
425:
421:
420:
412:
401:
399:
396:
392:
391:
387:
378:
375:
372:
368:
356:
352:Book articles
339:
335:
334:documentation
331:
327:
323:
322:
321:
312:
306:
301:
299:
296:
292:
291:
287:
284:
281:
278:
274:
258:
250:
246:
245:
242:
234:
230:
229:
226:
218:
214:
213:
210:
202:
198:
197:
194:
192:
187:
186:
181:
177:
173:
169:
163:
160:
159:
156:
139:
138:
133:
129:
128:
120:
109:
107:
104:
100:
99:
95:
88:
84:
80:
76:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
1267:
1238:
1204:
1196:
1188:"(...) more
1173:
1166:
1142:
1120:
1077:
1063:
1007:
991:
986:
984:
969:
948:
929:
927:
899:
895:
882:
857:
850:
841:
837:
833:
832:, subtitled
829:
825:
823:
793:
789:
775:
771:
757:
747:
738:
700:
695:
691:
688:
685:
682:
678:
675:
671:
667:
664:
660:
657:
654:
651:
648:
644:
628:
600:
596:
592:
589:
585:
582:
567:
558:
552:
544:
540:
537:
534:
518:
507:
496:
471:
417:
318:
317:
311:Books portal
167:
135:
125:
51:WikiProjects
1205:"much less"
1183:into "(...)
1094:—Preceding
555:Snowspinner
225:Metaphysics
79:Metaphysics
1275:Categories
992:being bold
949:Groundwork
896:Groundwork
858:Groundwork
851:Groundwork
842:Groundwork
826:Groundwork
143:Philosophy
132:philosophy
75:Literature
70:Philosophy
1190:enigmatic
973:Sam Clark
922:Free will
886:Sam Clark
856:Tasks of
849:Place of
729:causa sui
631:causa sui
614:causa sui
1213:oxymoron
1203:Because
1096:unsigned
1082:Delirium
1067:KSchutte
962:Lestrade
957:Lestrade
918:Morality
914:Autonomy
816:Lestrade
811:Lestrade
785:Lestrade
780:Lestrade
744:Problems
716:contribs
703:unsigned
546:place.--
527:Agreed.
521:Onebyone
513:Delirium
1192:(...)"
529:Evercat
500:Evercat
474:on the
433:Germany
424:Germany
380:C‑class
377:Germany
170:on the
41:B-class
1211:or an
1199:enigma
1169:(...)"
904:, the
796:... -
508:reason
241:Ethics
87:Modern
83:Ethics
47:scale.
1258:Vince
1145:Dcljr
1121:Vince
996:Vince
951:" is
343:Books
283:Books
1226:talk
1167:able
1159:into
1148:edit
1127:talk
1104:talk
930:five
920:and
910:Duty
863:Duty
712:talk
603:Eric
328:and
162:High
935:Sam
798:Sam
760:Sam
751:Sam
535:--
466:Mid
1277::
1256:--
1228:)
1129:)
1106:)
916:,
912:,
908:,
714:•
612:--
569:--
189:/
85:/
81:/
77:/
73::
1224:(
1125:(
1102:(
955:.
924:.
870:)
778:.
710:(
699:—
478:.
452:C
340:.
174:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
