Kant on the Normativity of Obligatory Ends

Abstract

I propose a novel way to understand the stringency of Kant’s conception of beneficence. This novel understanding can ground our intuition that we do not have to forego (almost) all pursuit of our personal ends. I argue that we should understand the application of imperfect duties to specific cases according to the framework set by the adoption and promotion of ends. Agents have other ends than obligatory ones and they must weigh obligatory ends against these other ends. Obligatory ends are special among ends only insofar as their adoption is not optional. My reading of the normative status of imperfect duties affords a way of thinking about beneficence modelled on the everyday ways in which agents pursue their personal projects and weigh different ends against each other. This establishes a middle-ground between an extremely demanding conception of beneficence and an overly latitudinarian one. Furthermore, it helps us understand why we do not have to be maximally beneficent and why there is a bias towards the near in our thinking about rescue cases.

Kant and Overdemandingness I: The Demandingness of Imperfect Duties

“…6 6 One approach to imperfect duty focuses on the specific features and structures of the ends they are associated with (Fahmy, 2019; Herman, 1991, 2021; Noggle, 2009; Sticker, 2023). Imperfect duties qua ends are not necessarily antagonistic to agents' personal ends, but rather form an important part of a system of ends and duties.…”

“…They introduce a “deliberative unity” (Herman, 2007, p. 278) for all of our pursuits, including of personal ends as they are the ultimate ends or justification of all actions (Herman, 2007, ch.11). For detailed discussion of this version of the relation between duty (especially obligatory ends) and personal ends see (Sticker, 2023).…”