The lutheran influence on Kant’s depraved will

Article

Abstract

Contemporary Kant-scholarship has a tendency to allign Kant’s understanding of depravity closer to Erasmus than Luther in their famous debate on the freedom of the will (1520–1527). While, at face value, some paragraphs do warrant such a claim, I will argue that Kant’s understanding of the radical evil will draws closer to Luther than Erasmus in a number of elements. These elements are (1) the intervention of the Wille for progress towards the good, (2) a positive choice for evil, (3) the inscrutability of moral progress, (4) the rejection of prudence as a means for salvation and (5) the rejection of moral sentimentalism. I believe that Kant-scholarship mistakenly pegs Kant’s rational Enlightenment optimism for an existential optimism while Kant’s view of fallen nature draws closer to Lutheran than Erasmusian depravity. A tacit Lutheran influence pervades Kant’s moral philosophy which could explain the influence Kant’s has had on some more pessimistic 19th century philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Keywords

Free will-debate Luther/Erasmus Depravity Radical evil Salvation Immanuel Kant 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ameriks, K. (2006). Kant and motivational externalism. In: H. Klemme, et al. (Ed.) Moralische Motivation. Kant und die Alternativen (pp. 3–23). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson-God S. (1984) Kant’s rejection of devilishness: The limits of human volition. Idealisitic Studies 14: 35–48Google Scholar
  3. Allison H. (1990) Kant’s Theory of Freedom. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison, H. (1996). On the banality of (radical) evil. A kantian analysis. In: H. Allison (Ed.) Idealism and Freedom (pp. 169–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aune B. (1979) Kant’s theory of morals. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Axinn S. (1994) The logic of hope: Extensions of Kant’s view of religion. Rodopi publication, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernstein R. (2002) Radical evil. A philosophical interrogation. Routledge Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. De Wachter F. (2003) Hoe radicaal is het radicale kwaad?. Tijdschrift voor de filosofie 65: 33–57Google Scholar
  9. Firestone C., Jacobs N. (2008) In defense of Kant’s religion. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Gonzalez J. (1975) A history of christian thought, vol. III: From the protestant reformation to the twentieth century. Abingdon Press, NashvilleGoogle Scholar
  11. Guyer P. (2000) Kant on freedom, law, and happiness. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henrich, D. (2009). Hutcheson and Kant. In: K. Ameriks, O. Höffe (Eds.) Kant’s moral and legal philosophy (pp. 29–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Herdt J. (2008) Putting on virtue The legacy of splendid vices. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrera L. (2000) Kant on the moral Triebfeder. Kant-Studien 91: 395–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kant I. (1963) Lectures on ethics. (L. Infield, Trans.). Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Kant, I. (1996a). Practical philosophy. (M. J. Gregor, Ed. and Trans.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kant, I. (1996b). Religion and rational theology. (A. Wood & G. Di Giovanni, Ed. and Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kerstein, S. (2001). Kant’s (not so radical?) hedonism. In: V. Gerhardt (Ed.) Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung, Akten des IX. Internationalen Kant-Kongress, vol. III (pp. 247–55). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Korsgaard C. (1996) Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kraye, J. (1988). Moral philosophy. In: C. Schmitt, & Q. Skinner (Eds.) The cambridge history of renaissance philosophy (pp. 303–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kuehn M. (2001) Kant: A biography. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Levi A. (1974) Pagan virtue and the humanism of the northern renaissance. The Society for Renaissance Studies, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindberg, C. (2005). Introduction. In: The Pietist theologians (pp. 1–21). Oxford: Blackwell Publication.Google Scholar
  24. Matustik M. (2008) Radical evil and the scarcity of hope. Indiana University Press, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  25. McCarty R. (1993) Kantian moral motivation and the feeling of respect. Journal of the History of Philosophy 31: 421–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCarthy R. (2009) Kant’s theory of action. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michalson G. (1990) Fallen freedom. Kant on radical evil and moral regeneration. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michalson G. (1999) Kant and the problem of god. Blackwell publication, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Moroney, S. (2000). The noetic effects of sin: A historical and contemporary exploration of how sin affects our thinking. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  30. Muchnik, P. (2009). Kant’s theory of evil. An essay on the dangers of self-love and the a prioricity of history. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  31. O’Neill O. (1975) Acting on principle. An essay on Kantian ethics. Columbia University Press, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmquist S. (1992) Does Kant reduce religion to morality. Kant-Studien 83: 129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmquist, S. (2000). Kant’s critical religion. Volume Two of Kant’s system of perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  34. Patton, H.J. (1964). Foreword. In: The doctrine of virtue. Part II of the Metaphysics of morals. (M. Gregor, Trans.). New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  35. Reath A. (1989) Kant’s theory of moral sensibility. Respect for the law and the influence of inclination. Kant-Studien 80: 284–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rummel E. (1995) The humanist-scholastic debate in the renaissance and reformation. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Skinner Q. (1978) The foundations of modern political thought. Vol 1: The renaissance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Staten, H. (2005). Radical evil revived: Hitler, Kant, Luther, Neo-Lacanians. In: A. Schrift (Ed.) Modernity and the problem of evil (pp. 12–27). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sudduth M. (2009) The reformed objection to natural theology. Farnham, Ashgate PublishingGoogle Scholar
  40. Wallmann, J. (1990). Der Pietismus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  41. Winter, E. (1972). Introduction. In: Erasmus–Luther. Discourse on Free Will (pp. v–xi). (E. Winter, Ed. and Trans.). New York: Frederick Ungar.Google Scholar
  42. Wood A. (1999) Kant’s ethical thought. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hoger Instituut voor WijsbegeerteKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenSteenokkerzeelBelgium

Personalised recommendations