Continental Philosophy Review

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 407–437

The “new categorical imperative” and Adorno’s aporetic moral philosophy

Article

Abstract

This article offers a new interpretation of Adorno’s “new categorical imperative”: it suggests that the new imperative is an important element of Adorno’s moral philosophy and at the same time runs counter to some of its essential features. It is suggested that Adorno’s moral philosophy leads to two aporiae, which create an impasse that the new categorical imperative attempts to circumvent. The first aporia results from the tension between Adorno’s acknowledgement that praxis is an essential part of moral philosophy, and his view according to which existing social conditions make it impossible for moral knowledge to be translated into “right” action. The second aporia results from the tension between the uncompromising sensitivity to suffering that underlies Adorno’s moral thought, and his analysis of the culture industry mechanisms which turn people into happy, satisfied customers—an incompatibility which threatens to pull the rug out from under Adorno’s moral philosophy. My interpretation of the “new categorical imperative” focuses on two characteristics it inherits from the “old,” Kantian one—self-evidence and unconditionality—in order to present the new imperative as a response to these two aporiae.

Keywords

Adorno Kant New categorical imperative Auschwitz Critical theory Culture industry Experience 

References

  1. Adorno, Theodor. 1998. Marginalia to theory and praxis. In Critical models (trans: Pickford, H.W.), 259–278. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adorno, Theodor. 2000. Problems of moral philosophy (trans: Livingstone, R.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Adorno, Theodor. 2001. Dialectic of enlightenment (trans: Cumming, J.). New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
  4. Adorno, Theodor. 2002. Minima Moralia (trans: Jepchot, E.F.N.). New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. Adorno, Theodor. 2003a. Education after Auschwitz. In Can one live after Auschwitz?, ed. Rolf Tiedemann, 19–33. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Adorno, Theodor. 2003b. Reflections on class theory. In Can one live after Auschwitz?, ed. Rolf Tiedemann, 93–110. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Adorno, Theodor. 2003c. Negative dialectics (trans: Ashton, E.B.). New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
  8. Adorno, Theoder. 2003d. The meaning of working through the past. In Can one live after Auschwitz?, ed. Rolf Tiedemann, 3–18. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2004. Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno—an intellectual in dark times. In Theodor W. Adorno—Philosoph des beschädigten Lebens, ed. Moshe Zuckermann, 25–45. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Bernstein, J.M. 1997. Why rescue semblance? Metaphysical experience and the possibility of ethics. In The semblance of subjectivity: Essays in Adorno’s Aesthetic theory, ed. Huhn Zuidervaart, 177–213. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bernstein, J.M. 2001. Adorno: Disenchantment and ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bernstein, J.M. 2005. Suffering injustice: Misrecognition as moral injury in critical theory. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13(3): 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bernstein, J.M. 2006. Intact and fragmented bodies: Versions of ethics ‘After Auschwitz’. New German Critique 33(1): 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brunkhorst, Hauke. 1999. Adorno and critical theory. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
  15. Buck-Morss, Susan. 1977. The origin of negative dialectics: Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, and the Frankfurt institute. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dews, Peter. 2002. Uncategorical imperatives: Adorno, Badiou and the ethical turn. Radical Philosophy 111: 33–37.Google Scholar
  17. Eagan, Jennifer L. 1997. Philosophers and the holocaust: Mediating public disputes. International Studies in Philosophy 29(1): 9–17.Google Scholar
  18. Finlayson, James Gordon. 2002. Adorno on the ethical and the ineffable. European Journal of Philosophy 10(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fromm, Erich. 1991. The fear of freedom. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Gerhardt, Christina. 2006a. Introduction: Adorno and ethics. New German Critique 33(1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerhardt, Christina. 2006b. The ethics of animals in Adorno and Kafka. New German Critique 33(1): 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gur-Ze’ev, Ilan. 2000. The Frankfurt school and the history of Pessimism. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, Jürgen. 2005. The entwinement of myth and enlightenment: Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. In The philosophical discourse of modernity (trans: Lawrence, F.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hammer, Espen. 2000. Adorno and extreme evil. Philosophy and Social Criticism 26(4): 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horkheimer, Max. 1996. Eclipse of reason. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  26. Horkheimer, Max. 1978. Dawn and decline: Notes 19261931 and 19501969 (trans: Shaw, M.). New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  27. Horowitz, Asher. 2002. By a hair’s breadth: Critique, transcendence and the ethical in Adorno and Levinas. Philosophy and Social Criticism 28(2): 213–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jarvis, Simon. 1998. Adorno: A critical introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Jay, Martin. 1974. The dialectical imagination. A history of the Frankfurt school and the institute of social research 1923–50. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  30. Jay, Martin. 1984. Adorno. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  31. Kant, Immanuel. 1996a. Critique of practical reason. In The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant, vol. 4 (trans.: Gregor, M.J.), 133–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kant, Immanuel. 1996b. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. In The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant, vol. 4 (trans: Gregor, M.J.), 37–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kant, Immanuel. 1999. Critique of pure reason (trans: Guyer, P., Wood, A.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kant, Immanuel. 2002. Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that will be able to come forward as science. In The Cambridge edition to the works of Immanuel Kant, vol. 3 (trans. Hatfield, G.), 29–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Levin, David Michael. 2001. The embodiment of the categorical imperative: Kafka, Foucault, Benjamin, Adorno and Levinas. Philosophy and Social Criticism 27(4): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lukács, György. 1971. History and class consciousness (trans: Livingstone, R.). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Marx, Karl. 1975. Contribution to critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law. Introduction. In Collected works, vol. 3 (trans: Cohen, J.), 175–187. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  38. Menke, Christoph. 2004. Genealogy and critique—two forms of ethical questioning of morality. In The Cambridge companion to Adorno, ed. Tom Huhn, 302–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’neill, Onora. 1989. Constructions of reason: explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1987. Discourse on the origin of inequality. In The basic political writings (trans: Cress, D.A.), 25–109. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishong Company.Google Scholar
  41. Schweppenhäuser, Gerhard. 2004. Adorno’s negative moral philosophy. In The Cambridge companion to Adorno, ed. Tom Huhn, 328–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Toole, David. 1993. On lingering eyes and talking things: Adorno and Deleuze on Philosophy since Auschwitz. Philosophy Today 37(3–4): 223–246.Google Scholar
  43. Wood, Allen W. 1999. Kant’s ethical thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Yovel, Yirmiyahu. 1980. Kant and the philosophy of history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Zimmermann, Rolf. 2005. Philosophie Nach Auschwitz. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations