What Ought I to Do? : : Morality in Kant and Levinas / / Catherine Chalier.

• Superior document: Title is part of eBook package: De Gruyter Cornell University Press Backlist 2000-2013
• VerfasserIn: Chalier, Catherine,
• TeilnehmendeR: Todd, Jane Marie.
• Place / Publishing House: Ithaca, NY : : Cornell University Press, , [2018]; ©2002
• Year of Publication: 2018
• Language: English
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (208 p.)
• Other title: Frontmatter --; Contents --; Introduction --; 1. The Critique of Intellectualism --; 2. Good Will and the Face --; 3. Good Precedes Evil --; 4. Autonomy and Heteronomy --; 5. Sensibility and Reason --; 6. Intelligible Character and Anarchy --; 7. The Question of Happiness --; 8. Ethics and Religion --; Notes --; Index
• Format: Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
• ISBN: 9781501722530; 9783110536157
• DOI: 10.7591/9781501722530
• Access: restricted access
• Hierarchical level: Monograph
• Statement of Responsibility: Catherine Chalier.

Is it possible to apply a theoretical approach to ethics? The French philosopher Catherine Chalier addresses this question with an unusual combination of traditional ethics and continental philosophy. In a powerful argument for the necessity of moral reflection, Chalier counters the notion that morality can be derived from theoretical knowledge. Chalier analyzes the positions of two great moral philosophers, Kant and Levinas. While both are critical of an ethics founded on knowledge, their criticisms spring from distinctly different points of view. Chalier reexamines their conclusions, pitting Levinas against (and with) Kant, to interrogate the very foundations of moral philosophy and moral imperatives. She provides a clear, systematic comparison of their positions on essential ideas such as free will, happiness, freedom, and evil. Although based on a close and elegant presentation of Kant and Levinas, Chalier's book serves as a context for the development of the author's own reflections on the question "What am I supposed to do?" and its continued importance for contemporary philosophy.