According to a familiar reading of Kant, he denies the possibility alleged by the rationalists of our having non-sensible or intellectual intuition. I argue in this article that he simply holds the possibility to be groundless. To put the contrast in terms of a distinction Kant makes in the A-Paralogisms, he raises a “dogmatic” objection to the rationalists in the former case, and a “critical” one in the latter. By analyzing the two-step argument in the B-Deduction, I defend the “critical” (...) reading, which may, I hope, shed light on how Kant can justify his claim – which may be regarded as a second-order, methodological one pivotal to his Critical project – that possible experience serves as the only guideline for proving that we can cognize objects a priori. (shrink)

This chapter presents an interpretation of Kant’s view on public reason. For Kant, reason in its theoretical use is the highest of our mental powers, giving principles for thinking in general that regulate our use of understanding as a faculty of cognition. In its practical use, it is a capacity to set ends to oneself and to pursue them by efficient means. Kant calls reason our “rational nature” and also employs the word ‘humanity’ as a technical term for it. Most (...) importantly, we find him saying toward the end of the Critique of Pure Reason, “The very existence of reason depends on this freedom [to communicate with others], which has no dictatorial authority, but whose claim is never more than the agreement of free citizens, each of whom must be able to express his reservations, indeed even his veto, without holding back”. In other words, for Kant, reason is essentially public. Thus, no philosophy that deserves to be called “Kantian” can be “monological” or “solipsistic,” as Habermas has depicted it. To interpret Kant’s view on public reason is therefore something like exposing the kernel of his entire critical approach to reason, both theoretical and practical. The goal of this chapter is to bring Kant’s view on public reason to bear on our thinking about how controversial bioethical matters in social debate are to be addressed through public deliberation, and what, if any, conditions ought to be designed and instituted under which such deliberation can proceed fairly and thereby achieve reasonable agreement, if not consensus. (shrink)