Kantian Moral Character Coming Off the Ropes: Is the Kingdom of Ends a Sound Principle of Moral Education? Moral Education in the Kantian Tradition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of exegetical works have recently attempted to reconstruct Immanuel Kant's philosophy in light of an increasingly complex understanding of pluralism, culture and community in moral life. 1 The case has turned to Kant's writings on anthropology, religion, education and virtue.The main thrust of these projects is to demonstrate that, contrary to the received views that appear in much of the literature, Kant saw moral life as defined by agents comfortably situated in culture and community.Such agents are not simply defined by moral attitudes derived from the strictures of "empty formalism."Recent work in the philosophy of education has taken a similar turn in emphasizing how social and cultural conditions can play a constitutive role in a Kantian vision of moral education.2 One of the significant themes to arise out of this literature is Kant's understanding of moral character.In contradistinction to the received idea of the mature Kantian moral agent acting out of some vague sense of rational detachment, where the promotion of virtue and affect are merely derivative of such rational standards, the reappraisal of Kant's moral theory aims to show that good character is necessary for and constitutive of moral agency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".