Middle Theory, Inner Freedom, and Moral Health

In her influential book, The Practice of Moral Judgment, Barbara Herman argues that Kantian ethics requires a “middle theory” applying formal rational constraints on willing to the particular circumstances and nature of human existence. I claim that a promising beginning to such a theory can be found in Kant’s discussion of duties of virtue in The Metaphysics of Morals. I argue that Kant’s distinction between perfect and imperfect duties of virtue should be understood as a distinction between duties concerned with respect for necessary conditions of moral health and moral prosperity in sensibly affected human agents who realize their moral nature only through the development and continuing exercise of inner freedom. Thus understood, perfect duties prohibiting self-deception, miserly avarice, and humility are oriented around concerns with the conditions of rational self-constraint in human agents and are contrasted with imperfect duties requiring the development of our talents and the perfection of our moral disposition concerned with the effective exercise of this kind of inner freedom in choice and action. Generalizing this account, I claim that it allows us to accommodate the range of duties that Kant discusses here including perfect duties owed to others prohibiting arrogance, defamation, and ridicule and imperfect duties enjoining gratitude and beneficence and suggests a much more subtle and promising account of moral duty than those typically associated with Kant’s view

Balancing commitments: Own-happiness and beneficence

There is a familiar problem in moral theories that recognize positive obligations to help others related to the practical room these obligations leave for ordinary life, and the risk that open-ended obligations to help others will consume our lives and resources. Responding to this problem, Kantians have tended to emphasize the idea of limits on positive obligations but are typically unsatisfactorily vague about the nature and extent of these limits. I argue here that aspects of Kant’s discussion of duties of virtue owed to ourselves suggest a useful metric we can use in discussing these limits and that generalizing this account and combining it with elements of Barbara Herman’s view, offers us an attractive model of moral deliberation with the resources we need to engage the critic’s challenge properly

Ergodic theory with applications to systems of differential equations

M.S.F. W. Stallar

Norms of Truthfulness and Non-Deception in Kantian Ethics

Questions about the morality of lying tend to be decided in a distinctive way early in discussions of Kant’s view on the basis of readings of the false promising example in his Groundwork of The metaphysics of morals. The standard deception-as-interference model that emerges typically yields a very general and strong presumption against deception associated with a narrow and rigorous model subject to a range of problems. In this paper, I suggest an alternative account based on Kant’s discussion of self-deception in the Metaphysics of Morals. I argue that we make the concern with respect for our capacity for inner freedom seen in the case of self-deception the model for deception in general. Focusing on the case of paternalistic lying, I claim that this approach yields a subtle and integrated account that promises the kind of resources we need if we are to be able to make headway with hard cases where deception may seem permissible

Murder and Violence in Kantian Ethics

Acts of violence and murder have historically proved difficult to accommodate in standard accounts of the formula of universal law (FUL) version of Kant’s Categorical Imperative (CI). In “Murder and Mayhem,” Barbara Herman offers a distinctive account of the status of these acts that is intended to be appropriately didactic in comparison to accounts like the practical contradiction model. I argue that while Herman’s account is a promising one, the distinction she makes between coercive and non-coercive violence and her response to concerns with the classification of the latter as imperfect duties raise significant questions about the status of some duties. I suggest that we look, instead, to Kant’s treatment of suicide in The Metaphysics of Morals for an account of norms of non-violence and, in particular, to the connection between this duty and concerns with inner freedom and moral health. I argue that we can use this account to inform our general understanding of duties prohibiting killing and violence, and that the resulting account is a promising one

Insurance—Consequences of Erroneous Filing of an SR-21 Form

In recent years a large majority of state legislatures have enacted Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Laws. In general, this legislation requires both the owner and operator of a vehicle involved in an accident, where the property damage is over $100 or where there is a personal injury, to file some type of security with the commissioner of insurance. If the operator or owner has automobile liability insurance, the insurer is required to file a notice of the coverage with the commissioner. If the insurer does not file this form, known as an SR-21, within a specified time, both the operator’s license and the owner’s registration are revoked. The specific problem here is whether the insurer who files such a notice admitting coverage as to a certain accident, becomes liable on such policy even though it would not have been liable had it not filed the form. In nearly all automobile liability policies there is a clause limiting coverage to the named insured and anyone who has his permission to drive the vehicle. I. Problems of Interpretation II. A Possible Solution III. Application to Nebrask

The Manipulated Mechanism: Towards an Account of the Experimental Discovery of Mechanistic Explanations

Recent work in the philosophy of biology has sought after an account of mechanistic explanation. Biologists frequently encounter causal relationships that beg for explanation. For example, genes appear to encode for particular phenotypes. How does gene expression work? Biologists posit mechanisms to explain the link between cause and effect. Thus, gene expression would be explained by an appeal to a complex mechanism linking the gene to the phenotype, as such an appeal will provide answers to broad ranges of how and why questions about the causal relationship, and predict novel effects. Here, I focus on a recent problem raised for mechanistic explanation. Mechanism discovery is an inferential process which takes empirical data as premises, and produces a causal model of a mechanism as the conclusion. Such an inferential process requires rules, yet few accounts of mechanistic explanation attempt to provide them. Such inferential rules could be used to answer related normative questions facing accounts of mechanistic explanation. In particular, they can be brought to bear on questions of explanatory relevance: Which components are part of the mechanism, and how can we know? and questions of explanatory adequacy: When is a mechanistic explanation a good explanation? I argue that a formal account of mechanistic explanation grounded in a manipulationist account of causation can answer these kinds of question. A thoroughgoing defense of my account, however, requires that I defend its assumptions. Among the assumptions is the highly contentious principle known as `modularity\u27. Modularity is the claim that we must be able to independently manipulate each of the various components in a mechanism. The final chapters of my dissertation focus on a thoroughgoing defense of modularity against claims that it is frequently violated, conceptually intractable, or simply inapplicable to especially biological systems

Studies Of The Metal-Ion Binding Characteristics Of Soluble, Natural Organic Materials

Thesis (Ph.D.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 197