CONSTRUCTING OUR MORAL WORLD: AGENCY, TELEOLOGY, AND KORSGAARD
dc.contributor.advisor | Kerstein, Samuel | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Fyfe, Andrew Thomas | en_US |
dc.contributor.department | Philosophy | en_US |
dc.contributor.publisher | Digital Repository at the University of Maryland | en_US |
dc.contributor.publisher | University of Maryland (College Park, Md.) | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-06-25T05:39:13Z | |
dc.date.available | 2023-06-25T05:39:13Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Kantian ethicists maintain that morality applies to all agents irrespective of an agent’s particular circumstances, interests, or concerns. That is, morality applies to an agent categorically rather than hypothetically. Kantian ethics attempts to prove this categoricity by deriving morality from the constitutive conditions of action. If such an argument could be made to work, then morality would follow from the constitutive preconditions or “logic” of agency and thereby apply categorically to all agents regardless of unique eccentricities concerning an agent’s particular circumstances or interests. As a result, an argument for Kantian ethics typically adheres to the following formula: (1) providing a theory of agency that (2) entails that all agents are committed to a Kantian ethical outlook. My focus in this dissertation is one of these arguments for Kantian ethics. Specifically, the argument of Christine Korsgaard. I cannot fully defend her argument here in its entirety, but with this dissertation I hope to provide the background work developing the necessary theory of agency in order for Korsgaard’s argument for Kantian ethics to succeed. Specifically, I aim to put forward, develop, and defend the sort of non-standard, teleological theory of agency upon which Korsgaard’s argument for Kantian ethics crucially depends. Moreover, with this dissertation I aim to attack the more widely accepted Davidsonian, causalist theory of agency which Korsgaard’s Aristotelian-Wittegenstienian-Anscombian teleological theory of agency opposes and I argue we should adopt instead. | en_US |
dc.identifier | https://doi.org/10.13016/dspace/funi-r6fu | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1903/30131 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.subject.pqcontrolled | Philosophy | en_US |
dc.subject.pqcontrolled | Ethics | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | Ethics | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | Kant | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | Korsgaard | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | Philosophy of Action | en_US |
dc.subject.pquncontrolled | Teleology | en_US |
dc.title | CONSTRUCTING OUR MORAL WORLD: AGENCY, TELEOLOGY, AND KORSGAARD | en_US |
dc.type | Dissertation | en_US |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1