English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

What does Kant mean when he claims that a moral conflict is only possible as a conflict between obligating reasons ( rationes obligandi )? How does this differ from a conflict of duties? And how does Kant’s idea relate to the understandings of moral conflict prevalent in his time? This paper distinguishes three influential traditional models (as represented by Wolff, Baumgarten, and Jesuit casuistry) for a comparison with Kant’s own conception of moral conflict. Before investigating these issues more deeply, the paper discusses a preliminary point regarding the liminal localization of the moral conflict between the domains of theory and practice. As a result, its solution depends both on the consistency of the moral theory and on the agent’s conscientiousness in the practice of moral judgment.

Ein Konflikt in der Maxime. Kants Auffassung des moralischen Konflikts im Kontext seiner Zeit