The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 71 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Kant’s Derivation of the Moral “Ought” from a Metaphysical “Is”
Open accessAbstract
This chapter argues that Kant can be read as holding that “ought” judgments follow from certain “is” judgments by mere analysis. More specifically, an interpretation is defended according to which (1) Kant holds that “S ought to F” is analytically equivalent to “If, as it can and would were there no other influences on the will, S’s faculty of reason determined S’s willing, S would F” and (2) Kant’s notions of reason, the will, and freedom are all fundamentally non-normative. Not only does this reading have significant textual support, but it also sheds light on why Kant takes freedom and morality to mutually imply one another. Moreover, while Kant does take there to be a gap between moral judgments and empirical descriptive statements, that gap is consistent with the analysis in question. The author concludes by arguing that this rejection of the is-ought gap is not as philosophically implausible as it might seem, with a focus on G. E. Moore and Hume’s arguments for certain “gaps” between the normative and the non-normative.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The chapter argues that Kant can be read as rejecting the is–ought gap in the strongest form: “S ought to F” is analytically equivalent to a counterfactual about what S would do if reason alone determined the will. It pairs this with the claim that Kant’s notions of reason, will, and freedom are fundamentally non-normative, and argues this reading is neither exegetically absurd nor philosophically uncharitable.
Key findings
- The paper defends Analytic Equivalence: Kant holds that “S ought to F” is analytically equivalent to “If, as it can and would were there no other influences on the will, S’s faculty of reason determined S’s willing, S would F.”
- It defends Non-Normative Freedom: Kant’s notions of reason, the will, and thereby freedom are all non-normative, though they can be used to define normative notions.
- On this reading, a true “ought” judgment describes a metaphysical fact: the presence of competing motivational forces in a subject, specifically reason’s determination of the will in tension with sensible inclinations.
- The interpretation is said to explain why Kant takes freedom and morality to mutually imply one another, and to allow Kant to accommodate many intuitions behind Hume’s and Moore’s statements of the is–ought gap while still rejecting the gap.
Methods
- Philosophical/textual interpretation of Kant, relying most heavily on the *Critique of Pure Reason*, *Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals*, *Critique of Practical Reason*, and *Critique of the Power of Judgment*.
- The argument proceeds by direct textual support for Analytic Equivalence, indirect interpretive motivation, defense of Non-Normative Freedom, replies to interpretive objections, and a tentative reply to the philosophical objection that denying the is–ought gap is uncharitable.
- No empirical data, sample, or quantitative analysis is reported; the paper is a conceptual and exegetical argument.
Limitations
- The author states that he does not try to rule out other readings of the relevant passages or show that his overall interpretation is better than extant interpretations; a proper comparison would take more than a single paper.
- The author assumes Kant’s core views remained relatively stable across the decade in which the main texts were produced, though he notes it is unlikely they remained perfectly fixed.
- The author bypasses most details of Kant’s moral theory, including how the universalization test works, how the formulations of the moral law are reconciled, what the fact of reason involves, and how to understand Kant’s theory of freedom.
- The author also states that he does not attempt to explain the nature of the is–ought gap and remains neutral on semantic and teleological “ought”s, focusing on practical and epistemic “ought”s.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
70 Own interpretation · 48 Sources not found · 22 No basis given · 1 Not checked yet · 1 Own result
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Some of Kant's descriptions of freedom are negative, focusing on how we are not determined by external causes.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.3 Freedom as non-normative
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites GMS 4:446
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites KprV 5:29
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The first line of argument rests on the fact that Kant's characterizations of the faculty of reason in the KrV are non-normative.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.1. Reason as non-normative
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites A302/B359
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites A330/B386
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Since he directly attributes these illusions to reason, and does not seem to have a negatively normative notion of reason, there are grounds for taking him to understand reason in a non-normative way.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.1. Reason as non-normative
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites A339/B397
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites A606/B634
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Moreover, Kant's conclusions about the worth of reason in the KrV are, on the whole, negative.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.1. Reason as non-normative
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites A339/B397
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites A340/B398
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, his clearest definitions of reason in the general sense are focused on the quantitative content of its representations, in particular, their generality.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.1. Reason as non-normative
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites A302/B359
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites A330/B386
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“He holds that the analysis of philosophical concepts is much more difficult than the analysis of mathematical concepts: “in philosophy [in contrast to mathematics] the definition... must conclude rather than begin the work” (A730-31/B758-59).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.1. Analyticity and obviousness
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites A730-31/B758-59
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Nonetheless, Kant treats theoretical and practical reason at least somewhat separatelyhence the division between the first two Critiques (see KprV 5:3).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.2. The gap Kant draws
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites KprV 5:3
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Here, Kant claims that the fact established by practical reason is the same fact that was thought in the KrV, which is almost certainly meant to be about the thought of freedom Kant describes in the resolution to the Third Antinomy (A532-58/B560-86).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.3 The limits of cognition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites A532-58/B560-86
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, Hume does not state that “ought”s can never be inferred from “is”s.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, Kant thought that otherwise insightful philosophers (such as Hume and Leibniz) had mis-classified judgments as analytic vs. synthetic.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.1. Analyticity and obviousness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 31
- Probably not a substantial claim. 66
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
In the paper
“Kant introduces reason in KrV along with the basic concepts of laws and the will, and appears to give them non-normative characterizations.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 4. Indirect interpretive motivation for accepting Non-Normative Freedom and Analytic Equivalence
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites KrV
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I instead just note that there are passages where Kant seems to make strong epistemological claims about supersensible freedom, such as:”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.3 The limits of cognition
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The latter is non-normative and, as it is described in the resolution, is clearly supersensible.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.3 The limits of cognition
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To be sure, he also says that this deduction “seems altogether inconceivable.””
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Treatise 3.1.1.27
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“After all, Kant begins the Groundwork by endorsing the classical division of ethics from physics and logic (GMS 4:387).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.2. The gap Kant draws
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites GMS 4:387
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is significant that Hume does not include an “et cetera” in the above passage.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The methodological point is this: as Hume presents it, the is-ought gap has been overlooked in “every system of morality” which he has “hitherto met with” (Treatise 3.1.1.27).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6. The big philosophical objection, and a tentative reply
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Treatise 3.1.1.27
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In GMS, he says that “freedom, although it is not a property of the will in accordance with natural laws… must instead be a causality in accordance with immutable laws but of a special kind… what, then, can freedom of the will be other than autonomy, that is, the will's property of being a law to itself?” (GMS 4:446-47).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.3 Freedom as non-normative
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites GMS 4:446-47
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Kant denies that we can reach moral conclusions from theological premises, since he thinks that moral cognition is epistemically prior to cognition of God (see GMS 4:408-09).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites GMS 4:408-09
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the main gap Kant insists on is the gap from the empirical, he also posits a gap between theoretical and practical reason.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.2. The gap Kant draws
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Kant spends some time arguing that properly mathematical judgments like “7+5=12” are synthetic (B15-16, Prolegomena 4:268-69).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.1. Analyticity and obviousness
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites B15-16
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Prolegomena 4:268-69
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The initial characterization Hume gives of his target is an inference from “the being of a God” or “observations concerning human affairs” to an “ought.””
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Treatise 3.1.1.27
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These characterizations do not say that reason is a good capacity to have, or that these representations are correct.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.1. Reason as non-normative
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Rather, he states that this change is surprising, “of the last consequence,” “shou'd be observe'd and explain'd,” and that “a reason should be given.””
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Treatise 3.1.1.27
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Kant does hold that we cannot figure out what ought to happen on the basis of what happens, but what happens (a temporal notion) concerns the empirical world.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Kant thinks it is analytic that the concept of causation involves (genuinely) necessary connection (see, e.g., Prolegomena 4:257), yet he knows that Hume attempts to derive the concept from subjective association and habit (B5).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Prolegomena 4:257
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites B5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“At the end of the paragraph, Hume states that “the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects.””
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Treatise 3.1.1.27
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A common response to Moore in contemporary philosophy is to say that the identity of M and N is a synthetic fact, not an analytic one.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moore takes Kant to be making a semantic claim about “ought,” as I do.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There, Moore offers several (not obviously consistent) characterizations of Kant's metaethical view, some of which resemble the interpretation I have proposed:”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The main lines of the Argument are laid out in Chapter 1 of the Principia (see especially §11 and §13).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Principia §11
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Principia §13
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As noted in Section 3.1, Kant does not think reason is an empirical faculty.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Hume defines reason in this section of the Treatise as “the discovery of truth or falshood” (Treatise 3.1.1.9).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Treatise 3.1.1.9
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Open Question Argument is meant to support an is-ought gap of some sort, one that is stronger than Hume's in at least one respect (insofar as it is supposed to conflict with naturalism) and perhaps weaker than Hume's in another (insofar as it is more amenable to cognitivism than Hume's).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The GMS and the KprV do not (explicitly) make the distinction between Wille and Willkür that is found in Kant's later works (e.g., Metaphysics of Morals 6:226).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Metaphysics of Morals 6:226
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The definitional connection between Wille and reason is stronger than that between Willkür and reason.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They go on to say, however, that “more typically, he uses it to mean something closer to what Frege called Sinn or sense, that is, the connotation”(Guyer and Wood 1998, 207).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guyer and Wood 1998, 207
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Strictly speaking, the moral “ought” does not express only the moral law, since imperatives only hold for imperfectly rational beings, while the moral law holds for imperfectly and perfectly rational beings.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Concerning A71/B96, Guyer and Wood note: “Kant here uses Bedeutung… to mean the reference or denotation of the concept.””
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites A71/B96
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Guyer and Wood 1998, 207
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The crucial KprV 5:20 passage concerns Willkür, however, and that is my focus here.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites KprV 5:20
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The “ought” here is supposedly involved in both categorical and hypothetical imperatives.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I also allow that, for Kant, reason has a necessary relation to the normative.I only deny that this relation is built into the notion of reason itself.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.1. Reason as non-normative
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Kant has more than one notion of freedom, but as with his notion of will, it is plausible that whether these notions are normative hinges on whether his notion of reason is.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.3 Freedom as non-normative
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites GMS 4:446
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites KprV 5:29
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Kant definitionally ties the will to reason,foot_9 so we should expect the normative status of the two notions to be similar.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.2 The will as non-normative
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites GMS 4:412
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites GMS 4:446
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, while Kant does take there to be a gap between moral judgments and empirical descriptive statements, that gap is consistent with the analysis in question.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Non-Normative Freedom also claims that Kant's notion of the will is nonnormative.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2 The will as non-normative · hedged
“Yet if reason can be understood as non-normative, then the same would be true of the will.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.2 The will as non-normative
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites GMS 4:412
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites GMS 4:446
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites KprV 5:32
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § 3.2 The will as non-normative · hedged
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If my proposal is correct, then “ought” claims describe a motivational tension in the human will.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 4. Indirect interpretive motivation for accepting Non-Normative Freedom and Analytic Equivalence
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is not obvious how strong a claim Hume is making here.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is what we should expect if my proposal were correct.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.3 The limits of cognition
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reason would be a force that determines the will towards certain actions, while, for beings like us, sensible inclinations influence the will in a different way.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 4. Indirect interpretive motivation for accepting Non-Normative Freedom and Analytic Equivalence
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both such gaps are consistent with my proposal.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.2. The gap Kant draws
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That said, even if Kant does make a mistake concerning the is-ought gap, that mistake is hard to pin down.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6. The big philosophical objection, and a tentative reply
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Kant has more than one notion of freedom, but as with his notion of will, it is plausible that whether these notions are normative hinges on whether his notion of reason is.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 3.3 Freedom as non-normative
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If, as I suggested above, practical reason is a matter of reason's being able to determine the will, then all Kant is saying is that neither experience nor any other exercise of theoretical reason can establish the fact that reason can determine the will.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.2. The gap Kant draws
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken at face value, Hume seems to be saying that the “change” that requires explanation occurs only in views that derives “ought”s from one of these two particular sources.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concepts like those involved in morality, however, were not constructed, and this makes their analysis much more difficult.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.1. Analyticity and obviousness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps Hume is being hyperbolic, but he seems to be taking himself to be offering a novel insight.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6. The big philosophical objection, and a tentative reply
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taking “ought” judgments to describe this ties Kant's philosophy together in a straightforward way.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 4. Indirect interpretive motivation for accepting Non-Normative Freedom and Analytic Equivalence
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even so, we can see that nearly everything Hume says here is consistent with Kant, as I read him.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not only is philosophical analysis itself difficult, but people sometimes fail to recognize which judgments are analytic.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.1. Analyticity and obviousness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is consistent with my proposal.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.2. The gap Kant draws
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main pay-off of my conjunctive proposal is straightforward: it offers us an especially clear, systematically cohesive picture of Kant's philosophy.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 4. Indirect interpretive motivation for accepting Non-Normative Freedom and Analytic Equivalence
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reason for this is that mathematical concepts are constructed.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 5.1. Analyticity and obviousness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This tension can be seen as the practical parallel of what happens in the theoretical case.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 4. Indirect interpretive motivation for accepting Non-Normative Freedom and Analytic Equivalence
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The same holds for knowing which things are morally good and evil, since Kant defines these in terms of objects of the faculty of desire “in accordance with a principle of reason” (KprV 5:58).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites KprV 5:58
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moore's approaches and concerns are different.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Still, this is a very different sort of discovery than one concerning God or human affairs, which fits with Hume's main emphasis in the passage.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There may be a genuine disagreement here, but it takes some work to pin it down, for Hume and Kant have different notions of reason.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Now, if part of the meaning of “ought” is “reason,” then if one does not have a clear conception of reason, one's grasp of the meaning of “ought” will be problematic, such that it might seem like an open question as to how one should use the term.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So while Hume and Kant probably do differ here, my reading of Kant allows him to agree with much of Hume's best-known description of the is-ought gap.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If my argument in §3.1 is correct, however, then this is a different sense of “reason” than Kant's.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So Kant could agree that any shift from “is”s to “ought”s is surprising and requires explanation, though he could go on to add that, for some shifts, there is such an explanation to be had.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that, testing my reading against his Open Question Argument provides a useful test of whether my reading is uncharitable.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The objectionable implication Moore mentions at the end here is presumably one Kant would accept: if it could be demonstrated that there was no free will (or, more strongly, that free will was not possible), then it would indeed follow for Kant that nothing ought to be done.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If so, then my proposal does not obviously put Kant in a philosophically bad position.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That response is not available to Kant, as I read him.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Now, if Hume is only considering the theories he describes, then Kant could agree that such inferences seem inconceivable.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moore's presentation is confusing in several respects, and my purposes only require that Kant's view stand up to the most common understanding of the argument.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To know what we ought to do, we have to know how reason would in fact determine the will, and neither analysis nor empirical facts tell us that.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Hume's sense of “reason,” this would perhaps be a matter of moral truths being perceived by reason.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, we need some story along these lines in the theoretical case.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since Kant is already committed to having that kind of explanation in the case of causation, he could well hold that a similar explanation holds in the moral case.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without attempting a comparison of their views, I argue that my proposed reading of Kant contains the resources to accommodate many of the intuitions Hume and Moore draw on.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So while reason, in Kant's sense, does have an essential role in 'discovering' moral distinctions, 31 that alone does not show that Kant disagrees with Hume's statement.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This description, connected with the “ought” earlier in the passage, is just what we should expect if my proposal is correct.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“But even if we count the subject's will as an object, Kant could agree that “object”s are not founded on any facts about the will, so long as “founded” is taken in an epistemological sense, since our awareness of the moral law (as such) is epistemologically prior to our awareness of our own freedom (as such) (see KprV 5:5n., 5:31, and §2 above).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites KprV 5:5n.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites KprV 5:31
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If “object” here is in contrast to “subject,” then Kant could agree that “ought”s are not founded on relations of objects, since what “ought” facts describe is a feature of the subject's will.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Kant's explanation, on my reading, would appeal to a non-obvious analytic equivalence.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.1. Hume and Kant on "is" and "ought"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That further knowledge requires applying the universalizability test, which is not a matter of mere analysis.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“He could (i) allow that there is a certain first-order openness about moral questions, such that knowing Analytic Equivalence does not itself tell us which actions we ought to perform, and (ii) allow for a certain higher-order openness, such that being improperly reflective can keep us from fully understanding moral terms.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since Kant thinks it is possible for philosophers to misunderstand our faculty of reason, we should expect him to allow for similar openness in the use of any terms whose corresponding concepts analytically involve the notion of reason.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“If analytic facts were always obvious, then my interpretation might face a special problem here, but as we have seen, Kant does not think this (perhaps in contrast to Moore: see Principia §6).”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > 6.2. Moore and Kant on the good
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Principia §6
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In sum, the argument is typically understood as follows.If someone could ask, without any sign of conceptual confusion, whether some moral property M is instantiated by something with non-moral property N, then M ≠ N.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Principia
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given Non-Normative Freedom, this is less of a puzzle for my reading than for others, but it still calls for explanation.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the basis of this passage, one might predict that the theoretical “ought” would signify that if reason completely determined our faculty of judgment, some judgment would without fail take place.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, for reasons discussed in §3, that would seem to imply that we ought to accept transcendental illusions, and that is not Kant's view.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“My focus will be on the former below, but my proposal naturally extends to the latter.”
§ Kant's derivation of the moral 'ought' from a metaphysical 'is' > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Kant's core views remained relatively stable through the decade during which the Critique of Pure Reason, Groundwork, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of the Power of Judgment were produced.
“It is unlikely that Kant's views remained perfectly fixed through the decade during which these works were produced.I assume, however, that Kant's core views remained relatively stable.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
It is unlikely that the notion of reason is both positively and negatively normative (as opposed to reason becoming so when other factors are added).
“I am assuming that it is unlikely that the notion of reason is both positively and negatively normative (as opposed to reason becoming so when other factors are added).”
The paper relies on this without support.
As far as we know, Kant had limited access to Hume's Treatise and never carefully studied Book 3.
“As far as we know, Kant had limited access to Hume's Treatise, and never carefully studied Book 3.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Hume did not have Kant's view in mind when he wrote the Treatise.
“Hume did not have Kant's view in mind when he wrote the Treatise.”
The paper relies on this without support.
G. E. Moore did have Kant in mind when he made his Open Question Argument.
“G. E. Moore, however, did have Kant in mind when he made his Open Question Argument.”
Citations
Cites
Korsgaard, C. M. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552795.001.0001 · Cited by 1,646
Fine, K. (2012) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139149136.002 · Cited by 1,231
Kant's Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion
Grier, M. (2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511498145 · Cited by 622
European Journal of Philosophy
(2010) · European Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1111/(issn)1468-0378 · Cited by 563
Skorupski, J. (2010) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199587636.001.0001 · Cited by 377
Johnson, M. R., & Wians, W. R. (2005) · Aestimatio Sources and Studies in the History of Science · doi:10.1093/0199285306.001.0001 · Cited by 329
IRWIN, T. H. (2008) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199543274.001.0001 · Cited by 219
Mensch, J. (2013) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226022031.001.0001 · Cited by 163
Ginsborg, H. (2007) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-007-9163-3 · Cited by 156
Kant on the Nature of Logical Laws
Tolley, C. (2006) · Philosophical Topics · doi:10.5840/philtopics2006341/214 · Cited by 102
Kant's Metaphysics of the Self
Marshall, C. R. (2010) · Philosopher's Imprint · Cited by 80
Self-citationSelf‐Constitution in the Ethics of Plato and Kant
Korsgaard, C. M. (2008) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552733.003.0004 · Cited by 70
Practical Cognition and Knowledge of Things-in-Themselves
Schäfer, K. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198860563.003.0005 · Cited by 69
Kant's Deduction of Freedom and Morality
Ameriks, K. (1981) · Journal of the history of philosophy · doi:10.1353/hph.2008.0501 · Cited by 53
Kantian Ethics Almost without Apology
Baron, M. (1999) · Cornell University Press eBooks · doi:10.7591/9781501720895 · Cited by 42
Kant and the Transcendental Object
Findlay, J. N. (1981) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198246381.001.0001 · Cited by 37
Reflection, Enlightenment, and the Significance of Spontaneity in Kant
Merritt, M. (2009) · British Journal for the History of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/09608780903339178 · Cited by 36
Reason, Reasons and NormativityPreprint
Raz, J. (2007) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1008795 · Cited by 25
Kant's Theory of Moral Sensibility: Respect for the Moral Law and the Influence of Inclination
Reath, A. (2006) · doi:10.1093/0199288836.003.0002 · Cited by 14
“A free will and a will under moral laws are the same”:
Schönecker, D. (2012) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511792489.016 · Cited by 5
Kant's Organicism: Epigenesis and the Development of Critical Philosophy
Guenova, L. L. (2014) · British Journal for the History of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/09608788.2014.930019 · Cited by 5
Snare’s Puzzle/Hume’s Purpose: Non-Cognitivism and What Hume Was Really Up to with No-Ought-From-Is
Pigden, C. R. (2010) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-230-29688-6_15 · Cited by 2
Ogilby, Milton, Canary Wine, and the Red Scorpion
Chignell, A. (2013) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110290813.261 · Cited by 1
Adams, R. M. (1997) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.2307/2953804
Does Kant Demand Explanations for All Synthetic A Priori Claims?
Marshall, C. (2014) · Journal of the History of Philosophy · doi:10.1353/hph.2014.0067
Self-citationAllison, H. E. (2012) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199647033.001.0001
Ameriks, K. (2012) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693689.001.0001
Anderson, R. L. (2001) · European Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1111/1468-0378.00138
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 1990, Kant’s theory of freedom
- 2001, European Journal of Philosophy
- 1996, Creating the kingdom of ends
- 1966, Principia ethica
- 2009, Kantian ethics
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schäfer, K. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192868534.001.0001 · Cited by 89
Kant on the Ends of the Sciences
Sturm, T. (2020) · Kant-Studien · doi:10.1515/kant-2020-0001 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Marshall, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Marshall, Colin
- ORCID
- Marshall, Colin
- Venue
- The Sensible and Intelligible Worlds
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2022-07-14
- Pages
- 382-404
- OpenAlex
- W4293832773
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2023: 12
- FWCI
- 36.93
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- philarchive.org
- Locations
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Kantian Philosophy and Modern Interpretations
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- Immanuel Kant, is-ought problem, moral ought, reason and will, freedom, moral judgment, G. E. Moore, David Hume, metaethics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
