Ought Implies Kant: A Reply to the Consequentialist Critique
(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009)
Corrections and other changes as of June 29, 2012
by Joel Marks
Page xvi (Acknowledgments): Add “Jadwiga Kawka,” after “Huibing He,”.
Page 3 (bottom paragraph): There should be a line-space before, and no indent for, the
bottom paragraph (beginning “A note on the title”).
Page 11 (top): The argument is incorrectly formatted. The premise (“Science is best …”)
should be on one line, the conclusion (“Therefore science …”) on the next. (Cf. the
formatting of the argument in the middle of page 12.) Furthermore, the resumption of the
paragraph (“But doesn’t that …”) should not be indented, although there should be a linespace separating the argument from the rest of the paragraph.
Page 14 (last line of next-to-last paragraph): Should be “cannot-but”.
Page 15 note 3: Insert comma after article title thus:
“Science and Philosophy,” in …
Page 35 (line 5): Remove comma after “profit-seekers”.
Page 36 note 5 (line 2): Should be “being” instead of “be”.
Page 36 note 5 (line 4): Remove “our” (from before “American”).
Page 64: Change “the cat who brings that very value into existence by its own being” to
“the cat who brings that very value into existence by her own being.”
Page 64: Change “You could say: The reason human beings have ethical responsibilities
is that we are human (i.e., rational and free, ethics-makers), but the reason human beings
have ethical responsibilities to themselves is that we are animals (value-makers, ends-inthemselves)” to “You could say: The reason human beings have ethical responsibilities
(i.e., are moral agents) is that we are human (i.e., rational and free, ethics-makers), but
the reason human beings have ethical responsibilities to themselves (and others) is that
we (i.e., qua moral patients) are animals (value-makers, ends-in-themselves).”
Page 66 note 3 (line 7): Remove “to refrain” (from before “from confining”).
Page 67: Since “Ibid.” was used in note 6, it should also be used in notes 11 and 16.
1
Page 69 (top): Current text (with italicized highlighting inserted by me now):
physics, albeit drawing a conclusion he himself did not, I stand by mine as truer to the
value of (all) animals. An acknowledged implication of Korsgaard’s analysis is that
animals (including ourselves) are valuable because we (i.e., the type of animal we are)
value them. I reject any such dependency of moral considerableness on another kind
of creature’s valuation.
Amended text (changing the 4 italicized sections from above):
physics, albeit drawing a conclusion he himself did not, I stand by mine as truer to the
moral significance of (all) animals. An acknowledged implication of Korsgaard’s analysis is
that animals (including ourselves) are morally considerable because we (i.e., the type of
animal we are) deem them so. I reject any such dependency of moral considerableness on
another kind of creature’s regard.
And then add the following sentence:
Her account might be faithful to why only some beings, such as humans, have
obligations to beings who are ends-in-themselves.
Page 73 (middle of penultimate paragraph): Replace first “in” with “as” in “(in appealing
in its own way ….”
Page 83 (very bottom): Replace “Om” with "Genug". Also add a superscript “38” and
add a note 38 on page 87, saying, “This was Kant’s last utterance, according to various
sources. I would like to thank Bob Fitzgerald for bringing it to my attention.”
Page 90 line 10: Should be “capable” not “incapable.”
Pages 90-91: Because of the hanging indents used on page 89, the formatting on pages
90-91 is screwed up. All of the paragraphs on these pages (all of the text until NOTES at
the bottom of page 91) belong to the discussion of Meta-ethics that begins at the bottom
of page 89. I think, therefore, the formatting of the entire Appendix One needs to be rethought.
Page 91: In the paragraph “Moral implies must,” change “ought to provide” to “must
provide”.
Page 92 note 8: Change “ought” to “must”.
Page 92 note 9. Change first sentence to “This is the ethical must, not the empirical
must.”
Page 99 (top paragraph, line 4): Should be “normative ethics” with an “s”.
Page 102 (Glossary): Add the following entry after the Ethics entry:
2
Ethics-maker: a being who has the capacity to judge or do right and wrong; an
ethical agent. Cf. value-maker.
Page 104 (Glossary): In the third paragraph beginning “Utility,” there should be a hyphen
and not a dash after “desire” on line 1, followed by a space before the open-parenthesis.
Page 104 (Glossary): Add the following entry after the Utility entry:
Value-maker (a.k.a. valuer): a being who has the capacity to value something and,
hence, is worthy of moral consideration. Cf. ethics-maker.
Page 106 (Bibliography): In the Frankena entry, “New Jersey” should be abbreviated
“N.J.”
Page 106 (Bibliography): In the Greene entry, “The MIT Press” should be preceded by
“Cambridge, Mass.:”.
Page 107 (Bibliography): In the Hooker entry, the year should come between the
author’s name and the article title. Currently it comes after the title. So it should read:
Hooker, Brad. 2008. “Rule Consequentialism.”
Page 107 (Bibliography): In the third Kant entry, “U.K.” should be inserted, thus:
———. 1797. The Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press, 1996. Originally published as Metaphysik der Sitten.
Page 111 (Index): Add “, 86n24” to the Cummiskey entry.
Page 112 (Index): “Golden Rule. See Animal Golden Rule” should be added as a separate
entry right after “Gibson, James J.”
Page 114 (Index): “psychology, 7” should be added as a separate entry right after
“psychological egoism”.
Page 114 (Index): at end of “rationality” entry, insert period after “83” and add “See also
practical reason” [sans period].
3