Evil and Moral Psychology

Barry, Peter Brian

doi:10.4324/9780203075357

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 Card (2002: 73;2010a: 43), Singer (2004, Russell (2014: 20, n. 5). The following texts attempt to make explicit a distinction between mere wrongdoing and evil: Thomas (1993), Garrard (2002), Perrett (2002), de Wijze (2002), Morton (2004), Kekes (2005), Vetlesen (2005), Formosa (2008), Barry (2012), Calder (2013.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can Kant’s Theory of Radical Evil Be Saved?

Goldberg

2017

Kantian rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I assess three contemporary criticisms levelled at Kant’s theory of evil in order to evaluate whether his theory can be saved. Critics argue that Kant does not adequately distinguish between evil and mundane wrongdoing, making his use of the term ‘evil’ emotional hyperbole; by defining evil as the subordination of the moral law to self-love his analysis is seemingly overly simplistic and empirically false; and by focusing solely on the moral character of the perpetrator of evil, Kant’s theory apparently ignores the most salient aspect of evil – the suffering of victims. While I will not claim that Kant provides us with a fully adequate theory of evil, I respond to each of these criticisms and conclude that Kant’s theory can still provide significant insight into both the nature of evil and the moral psychology of perpetrators of evil.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20 See Thomas (1993), Card (2002), Garrard (2002), Perrett (2002), de Wijze (2002), Morton (2004), Singer (2004, Kekes (2005), Vetlesen (2005), Formosa (2008), Barry (2012), Garrard andMcNaughton (2012) Calder (2013), Russell (2007Russell ( , 2012Russell ( , 2014.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%