Affiliation:
1. University of Bristol Department of Philosophy Bristol Great Britain
Abstract
Abstract
A number of influential Kantian philosophers assume that true need (wahres Bedürfniß) represents shared and fundamental human concerns that can both ground duties of aid and limit how much an agent can be morally required to do for others. In this paper, I take on this misreading and argue that true need is representative of personal priorities. This subjectivist reading fits better with Kant’s own characterization of true need and with his conceptions of need and happiness. Moreover, I argue that Kant’s own conception of true need is philosophically appealing, as it is anti-paternalistic. Agents are free to determine their own true need. This frees Kant from the challenge of coming up with a list of true human needs that are supposedly stable across cultures, epochs and individuals. Furthermore, my reading also implies that the mere fact that someone else considers something their true need does not necessitate our help.
Reference55 articles.
1. Ackeren, Marcel vanSticker, Martin (2015): “Kant and Moral Demandingness”, in: Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (1), 75–89.
2. — (2018): “Moral Rationalism and Demandingness in Kant”, in: Kantian Review 23 (3), 407–428.
3. Adelung, Johann Christoph (1811): Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der hochdeutschen Mundart, online: .
4. Baron, Marcia Fahmy, Melissa Seymour: “Beneficence and Other Duties of Love in The Metaphysics of Morals”.In: Kant’s Ethics. Ed. by Th. Hill Oxford 2009, 209–28.
5. Baron, Marcia (2016): “A Kantian Take on the Supererogatory”, in: Journal of Applied Philosophy 33 (4), 347–362.