Kantian Duties to the Self, Explained and Defended

Timmermann, Jens

doi:10.1017/s0031819106317056

Cited by 41 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…19 Despite strong traditions of acknowledging the existence of self-regarding duties and moral virtues, some are skeptical about them. Timmerman (2006) and Schofield (2015) have offered compelling defenses of self-regarding duties. Here, I note problems with two common reasons for doubting that there are self-regarding duties.…”

Section: The Ethics Of Hazard Paymentioning

confidence: 99%

Paying People to Risk Life or Limb

Hughes

2019

Bus. Ethics Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Does the content of a physically dangerous job affect the moral permissibility of hiring for that job? To what extent may employers consider costs in choosing workplace safety measures? Drawing on Kantian ethical theory, this article defends two strong ethical standards of workplace safety. First, the content of a hazardous job does indeed affect the moral permissibility of offering it. Unless employees need hazard pay to meet basic needs, it is permissible to offer a dangerous job only if prospective employees have a reason other than hazard pay to choose this job instead of safer alternatives. Second, employers typically cannot justify omitting expensive safety measures by paying employees more, even if employees prefer higher pay to greater safety. Employers offering dangerous jobs must meet these two standards to avoid treating their employees merely as means.

show abstract

Section: The Ethics Of Hazard Paymentioning

confidence: 99%

Paying People to Risk Life or Limb

Hughes

2019

Bus. Ethics Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Er macht diese Art von Pflichten dennoch stark, weil er davon ausgeht, dass es ohne sie "gar keine, auch keine äußeren Pflichten geben" würde, MS VI 417-418 ( § 2). Neuere Beiträge zur Debatte über Pflichten gegen sich selbst finden sich u. a. bei Denis (2001), Timmermann (2006), Lohmar (2005u. 2007) und Tiedemann (2007.…”

Section: Zwei Typen Des Würdeverständnissesunclassified

„Wer sich aber zum Wurm macht …“ – Würde als Selbstverpflichtung

Bauer

2018

Deutsche Zeitschrift Für Philosophie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kant introduces a duty to oneself to respect oneself and to avoid servility – or not to make oneself a worm. I argue for a wider understanding of this duty: Persons ought to respect their own dignity as persons with autonomy, rationality, and morality (A), but also as personalities, who embody dignity and live a dignified life (B). A corresponds to Kant’s concept of duty as the necessity of an action done out of respect for the moral law, B is an obligation arising from the practical necessity that follows from one’s self-understanding as an individual personality in a socio-cultural context. A and B relate to two types of dignity that are discussed in current debates. I argue that both types of dignity are equally relevant for understanding and respecting one’s own dignity. Finally I discuss why, even though persons can behave like worms, others ought not to step on them.

show abstract

“…Opponents argue that excluding intrinsic satisfaction does not acknowledge that helping is rooted in people's values and serves to affirm their sense of identity (Bowles, ). Philosophers, drawing on Kant, maintain that people have the moral obligation to hold values associated with doing good and to act accordingly to these values as part of one's self‐respect (Timmermann, ). This could also be related to the conception of virtue as “doing the right thing,” which offers intrinsic satisfaction, and to the proposition that an act's moral value is mainly determined by intention (Hursthouse, ).…”

Section: Altruism As a Contested Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Altruism, Solidarity, or Reciprocity be Used as Prosocial Appeals? Contrasting Conceptions of Members of the General Public and Medical Professionals Regarding Promoting Organ Donation

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moral appeals to altruism as a means to influence people's prosocial behavior are common, especially in organ donation, but communicators might not consider that conceptions of altruism differ among people, cultures, and scholars. In organ donation employing altruism as the main appeal is contested and some propose using solidarity or reciprocity as alternative prosocial appeals. This qualitative study explored views of people from diverse Israeli groups (29 focus groups) and medical professionals (140) regarding the appropriateness of employing these 3 moral appeals in organ donation. The analysis presents frameworks of contrasting conceptions of altruism that point to potential unintended effects when applying a restrictive conception. It also identifies communication challenges associated with introducing solidarity or reciprocity as prosocial and value‐laden persuasive appeals.

show abstract

Kantian Duties to the Self, Explained and Defended

Cited by 41 publications

References 6 publications

Paying People to Risk Life or Limb

Paying People to Risk Life or Limb

„Wer sich aber zum Wurm macht …“ – Würde als Selbstverpflichtung

Should Altruism, Solidarity, or Reciprocity be Used as Prosocial Appeals? Contrasting Conceptions of Members of the General Public and Medical Professionals Regarding Promoting Organ Donation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About