O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rissi, João Paulo
Data de Publicação: 2022
Tipo de documento: Tese
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFSCAR
Texto Completo: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/15811
Resumo: The subsection IV of section III of Kant’s Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals formulates the question, "how is a categorical imperative possible?" For this question to be answered the Groundwork requires a proof of the actual possibility of the supreme principle of morality under human conditions. The question then focuses on the legitimacy of using a principle of pure practical reason, that is: to submit the categorical imperative to transcendental deduction. In the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant dispenses with a deduction and states that the task of asking about the possibility of the moral law is vain, since it is presented as a Faktum der Vernunft that would legitimize, by itself, the human will. Therefore, what was previously, in GMS, indispensable: (to prove the legitimacy of the pure use of an a priori practical principle), ceases to be so in the KpV, with the introduction of an a priori fact that would be the consciousness of the moral law. The introduction of the concept of Faktum der Vernunft was criticized by some interpreters and philosophers. Schopenhauer, for example, accuses Kant of having turned the categorical imperative into a "hyperphysical fact within the mind." Such objections, which see irreconcilable positions or tension between the GMS and the KpV fail to take into account that Kant's goals are distinct in each of the works with regard to reflection on morality: the supreme principle of morality (which needed a deduction of its legitimacy that would prove that morality is not an illusion, in the GMS) is not left behind by a Faktum inherent in human reason, as can be found in the KpV. Awareness of the moral law is a Faktum of reason, and the categorical imperative is the supreme principle of morality. Distinct things. It requires, in order to think the Kantian reflection on morality in two distinct moments, to investigate the following points: (i) how the deduction of the categorical imperative is developed in section III of the GMS and its implications; (ii) what is the Faktum der Vernunft and why a deduction of the moral law would not only be dispensable, but it would not even make sense to expect there to be one in the KpV, since the GMS had already settled the question about the possible synthetic use of pure practical reason; (iii) Kant does not ask about a deduction of the moral law, but only of the categorical imperative. These points contribute to support the thesis we defend here: to show that, although a deduction exists only in GMS, the moral law, which is secured through a Faktum, is, under human circumstances, the categorical imperative itself. This means that even if the human being is conscious, a priori, of the moral law, he must also want to act morally: hence the moral obligation provided only by a categorical imperative comes in.
id SCAR_22c14d47f3240f612b5808d979c18d4f
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ufscar.br:ufscar/15811
network_acronym_str SCAR
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UFSCAR
repository_id_str 4322
spelling Rissi, João PauloSantos, Paulo Roberto Licht doshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/1681044854219924http://lattes.cnpq.br/6671109439230591294b55f3-1084-43d8-8fef-7ebed2e9004b2022-04-06T08:50:59Z2022-04-06T08:50:59Z2022-02-02RISSI, João Paulo. O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana. 2022. Tese (Doutorado em Filosofia) – Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 2022. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/15811.https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/15811The subsection IV of section III of Kant’s Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals formulates the question, "how is a categorical imperative possible?" For this question to be answered the Groundwork requires a proof of the actual possibility of the supreme principle of morality under human conditions. The question then focuses on the legitimacy of using a principle of pure practical reason, that is: to submit the categorical imperative to transcendental deduction. In the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant dispenses with a deduction and states that the task of asking about the possibility of the moral law is vain, since it is presented as a Faktum der Vernunft that would legitimize, by itself, the human will. Therefore, what was previously, in GMS, indispensable: (to prove the legitimacy of the pure use of an a priori practical principle), ceases to be so in the KpV, with the introduction of an a priori fact that would be the consciousness of the moral law. The introduction of the concept of Faktum der Vernunft was criticized by some interpreters and philosophers. Schopenhauer, for example, accuses Kant of having turned the categorical imperative into a "hyperphysical fact within the mind." Such objections, which see irreconcilable positions or tension between the GMS and the KpV fail to take into account that Kant's goals are distinct in each of the works with regard to reflection on morality: the supreme principle of morality (which needed a deduction of its legitimacy that would prove that morality is not an illusion, in the GMS) is not left behind by a Faktum inherent in human reason, as can be found in the KpV. Awareness of the moral law is a Faktum of reason, and the categorical imperative is the supreme principle of morality. Distinct things. It requires, in order to think the Kantian reflection on morality in two distinct moments, to investigate the following points: (i) how the deduction of the categorical imperative is developed in section III of the GMS and its implications; (ii) what is the Faktum der Vernunft and why a deduction of the moral law would not only be dispensable, but it would not even make sense to expect there to be one in the KpV, since the GMS had already settled the question about the possible synthetic use of pure practical reason; (iii) Kant does not ask about a deduction of the moral law, but only of the categorical imperative. These points contribute to support the thesis we defend here: to show that, although a deduction exists only in GMS, the moral law, which is secured through a Faktum, is, under human circumstances, the categorical imperative itself. This means that even if the human being is conscious, a priori, of the moral law, he must also want to act morally: hence the moral obligation provided only by a categorical imperative comes in.A subseção IV da seção III da Fundamentação da metafísica dos costumes formula a questão: “como é possível um imperativo categórico? ”. Para que essa questão seja respondida a Fundamentação exige uma prova da possibilidade real do princípio supremo da moralidade sob condições humanas. A questão se concentra, então, na legitimidade do uso de um princípio da razão prática pura, quer dizer: submeter à dedução transcendental o imperativo categórico. Na Crítica da razão prática, Kant dispensa uma dedução e afirma ser vã a tarefa de perguntar sobre a possibilidade da lei moral, pois ela se apresenta como um Faktum der Vernunft que legitimaria, por si só, a vontade humana. Portanto, aquilo que antes, na FMC, era indispensável: (provar a legitimidade do uso puro de um princípio prático a priori), deixa de sê-lo na CRPr, com a introdução de um fato a priori que seria a consciência da lei moral. A introdução do conceito de Faktum der Vernunft foi criticada por alguns intérpretes e filósofos. Schopenhauer, por exemplo, acusa Kant de ter transformado o imperativo categórico em um “fato hiperfísico dentro da mente”. Tais objeções, que veem posições irreconciliáveis ou tensão entre a FMC e a CRPr não levam em conta que os objetivos de Kant são distintos em cada uma das obras em relação à reflexão sobre a moralidade: o princípio supremo da moralidade (que precisou de uma dedução de sua legitimidade que provasse que a moralidade não é uma ilusão, na FMC) não é deixado para trás por um Faktum inerente à razão humana, como se pode encontrar na CRPr. A consciência da lei moral é um Faktum da razão, e o imperativo categórico é o princípio supremo da moralidade. Coisas distintas. Exige-se, para pensar a reflexão kantiana sobre a moralidade em dois momentos distintos, investigar os seguintes pontos: (i) como se desenvolve a dedução do imperativo categórico na seção III da FMC e suas implicações; (ii) o que é o Faktum der Vernunft e por qual motivo uma dedução da lei moral seria não só dispensável, como sequer faria sentido esperar que houvesse uma na CRPr, pois a FMC já havia resolvido a questão sobre o uso sintético possível da razão prática pura; (iii) Kant não pergunta sobre uma dedução da lei moral, mas apenas do imperativo categórico. Esses pontos contribuem para sustentar a tese que aqui defendemos: mostrar que, apesar de uma dedução existir somente na FMC, a lei moral, que é assegurada mediante um Faktum, é, sob circunstâncias humanas, o próprio imperativo categórico. Isso significa que mesmo que o ser humano seja consciente, a priori, da lei moral, ele também tem de querer agir moralmente: daí que entra a obrigação moral proporcionada somente por um imperativo categórico.Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)88882.426641/2019-01porUniversidade Federal de São CarlosCâmpus São CarlosPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia - PPGFilUFSCarAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazilhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/br/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessImperativo categóricoFato da razãoPrincípioDeduçãoLei moralCategorical imperativeFact of reasonPrincipleDeductionMoral lawCIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA::ETICAO problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantianaThe problem of deduction in kantian moral philosophyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis6006005877cd14-b1a1-4dfc-a43c-c9e98c251734reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFSCARinstname:Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCAR)instacron:UFSCARORIGINALTese doutorado João Paulo Rissi.pdfTese doutorado João Paulo Rissi.pdfTese de doutoradoapplication/pdf1507141https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/1/Tese%20doutorado%20Jo%c3%a3o%20Paulo%20Rissi.pdf9824482f88f32122a7579b6453074942MD51Carta de autodepósito.pdfCarta de autodepósito.pdfCarta de autodepósitoapplication/pdf220708https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/3/Carta%20de%20autodep%c3%b3sito.pdf261dc277eed009e11221f5d098435cd2MD53CC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8811https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/4/license_rdfe39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34MD54TEXTTese doutorado João Paulo Rissi.pdf.txtTese doutorado João Paulo Rissi.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain469493https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/5/Tese%20doutorado%20Jo%c3%a3o%20Paulo%20Rissi.pdf.txt90044265b1dfc15c2fc927c0552229d2MD55Carta de autodepósito.pdf.txtCarta de autodepósito.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain1514https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/7/Carta%20de%20autodep%c3%b3sito.pdf.txtae24e36a347e9bf5e343c49aa199f3d6MD57THUMBNAILTese doutorado João Paulo Rissi.pdf.jpgTese doutorado João Paulo Rissi.pdf.jpgIM Thumbnailimage/jpeg5606https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/6/Tese%20doutorado%20Jo%c3%a3o%20Paulo%20Rissi.pdf.jpge862a3c1aa145d3b28153bebc07518ecMD56Carta de autodepósito.pdf.jpgCarta de autodepósito.pdf.jpgIM Thumbnailimage/jpeg7207https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/8/Carta%20de%20autodep%c3%b3sito.pdf.jpgd0d6da7a2fd87bb005a6246002aa8ae4MD58ufscar/158112023-09-18 18:32:32.137oai:repositorio.ufscar.br:ufscar/15811Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://repositorio.ufscar.br/oai/requestopendoar:43222023-09-18T18:32:32Repositório Institucional da UFSCAR - Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCAR)false
dc.title.por.fl_str_mv O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana
dc.title.alternative.eng.fl_str_mv The problem of deduction in kantian moral philosophy
title O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana
spellingShingle O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana
Rissi, João Paulo
Imperativo categórico
Fato da razão
Princípio
Dedução
Lei moral
Categorical imperative
Fact of reason
Principle
Deduction
Moral law
CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA::ETICA
title_short O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana
title_full O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana
title_fullStr O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana
title_full_unstemmed O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana
title_sort O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana
author Rissi, João Paulo
author_facet Rissi, João Paulo
author_role author
dc.contributor.authorlattes.por.fl_str_mv http://lattes.cnpq.br/6671109439230591
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rissi, João Paulo
dc.contributor.advisor1.fl_str_mv Santos, Paulo Roberto Licht dos
dc.contributor.advisor1Lattes.fl_str_mv http://lattes.cnpq.br/1681044854219924
dc.contributor.authorID.fl_str_mv 294b55f3-1084-43d8-8fef-7ebed2e9004b
contributor_str_mv Santos, Paulo Roberto Licht dos
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Imperativo categórico
Fato da razão
Princípio
Dedução
Lei moral
topic Imperativo categórico
Fato da razão
Princípio
Dedução
Lei moral
Categorical imperative
Fact of reason
Principle
Deduction
Moral law
CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA::ETICA
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv Categorical imperative
Fact of reason
Principle
Deduction
Moral law
dc.subject.cnpq.fl_str_mv CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA::ETICA
description The subsection IV of section III of Kant’s Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals formulates the question, "how is a categorical imperative possible?" For this question to be answered the Groundwork requires a proof of the actual possibility of the supreme principle of morality under human conditions. The question then focuses on the legitimacy of using a principle of pure practical reason, that is: to submit the categorical imperative to transcendental deduction. In the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant dispenses with a deduction and states that the task of asking about the possibility of the moral law is vain, since it is presented as a Faktum der Vernunft that would legitimize, by itself, the human will. Therefore, what was previously, in GMS, indispensable: (to prove the legitimacy of the pure use of an a priori practical principle), ceases to be so in the KpV, with the introduction of an a priori fact that would be the consciousness of the moral law. The introduction of the concept of Faktum der Vernunft was criticized by some interpreters and philosophers. Schopenhauer, for example, accuses Kant of having turned the categorical imperative into a "hyperphysical fact within the mind." Such objections, which see irreconcilable positions or tension between the GMS and the KpV fail to take into account that Kant's goals are distinct in each of the works with regard to reflection on morality: the supreme principle of morality (which needed a deduction of its legitimacy that would prove that morality is not an illusion, in the GMS) is not left behind by a Faktum inherent in human reason, as can be found in the KpV. Awareness of the moral law is a Faktum of reason, and the categorical imperative is the supreme principle of morality. Distinct things. It requires, in order to think the Kantian reflection on morality in two distinct moments, to investigate the following points: (i) how the deduction of the categorical imperative is developed in section III of the GMS and its implications; (ii) what is the Faktum der Vernunft and why a deduction of the moral law would not only be dispensable, but it would not even make sense to expect there to be one in the KpV, since the GMS had already settled the question about the possible synthetic use of pure practical reason; (iii) Kant does not ask about a deduction of the moral law, but only of the categorical imperative. These points contribute to support the thesis we defend here: to show that, although a deduction exists only in GMS, the moral law, which is secured through a Faktum, is, under human circumstances, the categorical imperative itself. This means that even if the human being is conscious, a priori, of the moral law, he must also want to act morally: hence the moral obligation provided only by a categorical imperative comes in.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2022-04-06T08:50:59Z
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv 2022-04-06T08:50:59Z
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2022-02-02
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis
format doctoralThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.citation.fl_str_mv RISSI, João Paulo. O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana. 2022. Tese (Doutorado em Filosofia) – Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 2022. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/15811.
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/15811
identifier_str_mv RISSI, João Paulo. O problema da dedução na filosofia moral kantiana. 2022. Tese (Doutorado em Filosofia) – Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 2022. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/15811.
url https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/15811
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.confidence.fl_str_mv 600
600
dc.relation.authority.fl_str_mv 5877cd14-b1a1-4dfc-a43c-c9e98c251734
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazil
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/br/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazil
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/br/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de São Carlos
Câmpus São Carlos
dc.publisher.program.fl_str_mv Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia - PPGFil
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv UFSCar
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de São Carlos
Câmpus São Carlos
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFSCAR
instname:Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCAR)
instacron:UFSCAR
instname_str Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCAR)
instacron_str UFSCAR
institution UFSCAR
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UFSCAR
collection Repositório Institucional da UFSCAR
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/1/Tese%20doutorado%20Jo%c3%a3o%20Paulo%20Rissi.pdf
https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/3/Carta%20de%20autodep%c3%b3sito.pdf
https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/4/license_rdf
https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/5/Tese%20doutorado%20Jo%c3%a3o%20Paulo%20Rissi.pdf.txt
https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/7/Carta%20de%20autodep%c3%b3sito.pdf.txt
https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/6/Tese%20doutorado%20Jo%c3%a3o%20Paulo%20Rissi.pdf.jpg
https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/ufscar/15811/8/Carta%20de%20autodep%c3%b3sito.pdf.jpg
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 9824482f88f32122a7579b6453074942
261dc277eed009e11221f5d098435cd2
e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34
90044265b1dfc15c2fc927c0552229d2
ae24e36a347e9bf5e343c49aa199f3d6
e862a3c1aa145d3b28153bebc07518ec
d0d6da7a2fd87bb005a6246002aa8ae4
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UFSCAR - Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCAR)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1802136403914522624