Review by Choice Review
Wood (Stanford Univ.) offers an interpretation of Kant's own ethical theory and a rational reconstruction and defense of Kantian ethics, as there are topics--such as marriage, punishment, race, and sex--where Kantian ethics lead to conclusions different from those of Kant himself. Wood argues that many aspects of the standard interpretation of Kant's ethics are inaccurate. Kant does not believe that a good will must act from duty alone. A will may be good even when it acts from inclination. Kant focuses attention on a will that acts only from duty--the occasion when it is most apparent that a will is good. Kant's different formulas for the categorical imperative are not equivalent, but instead are progressively more accurate attempts to articulate the categorical imperative. Most surprisingly, "Kant views the respect for persons as originating in the enticement-refusal structure of imaginatively transformed sexual desire." Wood always indicates when he disagrees with the standard interpretation, and he critically engages with its main proponents. This book will enable readers to learn more about the current debates. Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-level undergraduates through faculty/researchers; general readers. J. M. Fritzman Lewis and Clark College
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
