本书采用了功利主义伦理学的观点，即公共利益的动机比一般人所理解的更重要，探讨了伊曼纽尔·康德的哲学在多大程度上与这种细致入微的功利主义一致。
康德的要求是，充分的道德价值需要一个代理人纯粹地“从责任”来推动“幸福的普遍目的”，而不是从个人倾向来实现这一目的，这一要求清楚地将康德的立场与这里采用的功利主义伦理学区分开来。但这本书也通过引用他的正式伦理著作和他关于伦理学和人类学的讲座，证明了康德对第二类行为的认可——与“责任”一致的行为——包括其他关于或“同情”的动机，以促进普遍的幸福，这与功利主义立场不同，只在于它值得有资格的道德信用。在将康德与洛克、史密斯等18世纪功利主义作家以及边沁和马尔萨斯进行比较后，本书评估了J.S.密尔和卡尔·马克思对康德的反应，并提出米歇尔·德·蒙田（Michel de Montagine，1533-1592）是维护“康德”行为学说“出于职责”和其他共同特征的“先驱”。在公共政策方面，这部作品展示了康德对贫困救济和减少不平等的辩护，他对国家教育计划的提议，以及他对家长作风的反对。
这本书为学术专家和学生提供了必要的阅读材料，涉及政治经济学和伦理学的界面，以及经济思想史、政治思想史和思想史。
Immanuel Kant and Utilitarian Ethics
Adopting a view of utilitarian ethics in which motivation in the public interest takes on greater weight than is generally appreciated, this book explores the extent to which the philosophy of Immanuel Kant is consistent with this nuanced version of utilitarianism.
Kant’s requirement that full ethical merit needs an agent to act purely ‘from duty’ to forward ‘the universal end of happiness’ rather than from a personal inclination to achieve that end clearly distinguishes his position from the version of utilitarian ethics adopted here. But this book also demonstrates, by reference to his formal ethical works and his lectures on ethics and anthropology, Kant’s approval of a secondary category of conduct – conduct ‘in conformity with’ duty – entailing other-regarding or ‘sympathetic’ motivation to advance general happiness, differing from the utilitarian position only in its meriting a qualified degree of ethical credit. After comparing Kant with eighteenth-century utilitarian writers from Locke to Smith, and also with Bentham and Malthus, the book evaluates reactions to Kant by J.S. Mill and Karl Marx and proposes Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) as a ‘precursor’ for maintaining a ‘Kantian’ doctrine of conduct ‘from duty’ and for other shared features. In terms of public policy, the work demonstrates Kant’s justification of poor relief and reduced inequality, his proposal for a state education plan and his opposition to paternalism.
This book provides essential reading for academic specialists and students concerned with the interface of political economy and ethics, as well as the history of economic thought, history of political thought and intellectual history.
OR
