Why does Kant think that the principle that determines morality must be purely formal and have no content? In some sense it is just the logical extension of Crusius’ critique of Leibnizian and Wolffian pseudo-morality: if morality is defined through any object of the will, then our adherence to it would hinge upon self-interest in some way. Morality cannot be predetermined by any content, otherwise morality becomes unduly constricted and its bindingness contingent upon desire for that content (which we may or may not have). Readers will be familiar with this as Kant’s argument that only a hypothetical imperative can result from a non-formal (i.e., “material”) basis for morality. In plain English, the reason you do the right thing has to be first and…

+Read more