In this article, I argue that Immanuel Kant fails to provide a satisfactory account of ‘moral debt’ in Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. More precisely, he fails to answer the question of why we should assume that a debt exists in the first place. In light of recent scholarship on this area of his thought, I sketch some possible readings of Kant on the nature of moral transformation that suggest how he might account for this debt. I then argue that these accounts fail to justify its existence within Kant’s project.
|Journal or Work Title|
|Number of Pages|
|Departments and Units|
Digital Object Identifier
This DOI is the best way to cite this article.
This article has no files associated with it. Please access via the DOI.