Scholarlink

<p>Kant has been interpreted as claiming that persons possess unconditional and incomparable value. If this claim, which I&#xa0;call the “absolute value claim,” entails that persons are valuable in all circumstances and cannot be valued vis-à-vis each other, then its philosophical validity may be disputed. I point to passages in which Kant can be understood as saying that persons, as opposed to non-persons, can be thought to have absolute value, but persons performing immoral actions can be denied value. I&#xa0;argue that if we accept these propositions, then, at least from the Kantian standpoint, some well-known cases which seem to problematize the absolute value claim—a soldier sacrifices himself in battle to save four of his comrades; a&#xa0;person kills another person in order to save his own life; should a&#xa0;scarce life-saving drug be given to a&#xa0;young or an old person?—need not be seen prima facie to undermine the philosophical viability of this claim.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

On Kant’s claim that persons have absolute value: provisional notes on some problem cases

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月17日

查看全文
  • Apaar Kumar

摘要

Kant has been interpreted as claiming that persons possess unconditional and incomparable value. If this claim, which I call the “absolute value claim,” entails that persons are valuable in all circumstances and cannot be valued vis-à-vis each other, then its philosophical validity may be disputed. I point to passages in which Kant can be understood as saying that persons, as opposed to non-persons, can be thought to have absolute value, but persons performing immoral actions can be denied value. I argue that if we accept these propositions, then, at least from the Kantian standpoint, some well-known cases which seem to problematize the absolute value claim—a soldier sacrifices himself in battle to save four of his comrades; a person kills another person in order to save his own life; should a scarce life-saving drug be given to a young or an old person?—need not be seen prima facie to undermine the philosophical viability of this claim.