Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2020, Vol. 15 Issue (3) : 380-394
Formalism and Heteronomy qua Logonomy—On Max Scheler’s Critique and Development of Kant’s Ethics
Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Download: PDF(265 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

How should Scheler’s critique of Kant’s ethics be interpreted? This paper focuses on two aspects of Scheler’s critique of Kant’s ethics: 1) the problem of “formalism” in Kant’s ethics, and 2) the problem of the “ethics of autonomy” and “ethics of heteronomy.” Generally speaking, Scheler’s project has a “modern” starting point; that is to say, his work starts with the rejection or critique of Kant and Aristotle. Most essentially, Scheler’s “material ethics of values” (ethics of person) must stay autonomous. Following Kant, Scheler takes Aristotle’s theory as an “ethics of heteronomy,” and then competes with Kant within the “ethics of autonomy” and further develops his own “ethics of personal autonomy.”

Keywords formalism      material apriorism      autonomy      heteronomy      ethics     
Issue Date: 28 September 2020
 Cite this article:   
ZHANG Wei. Formalism and Heteronomy qua Logonomy—On Max Scheler’s Critique and Development of Kant’s Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 380-394.
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] YAO Xinzhong. Wall, Gate and Self-Other Dynamics: A Confucian Ethics of Separation and Interconnection[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 567-585.
[2] ZHU Qin. Confucian Moral Imagination and Ethics Education in Engineering[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 36-52.
[3] John Robert Williams. A Couple Nagging Interpretive Difficulties in Zhuangzi Studies vis-à-vis William James on the Ethics and Psychology of Belief[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 593-611.
[4] Rina Marie Camus. “Athl-Ethics”: Virtue Training in Mencius and Aristotle[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(1): 152-170.
[5] HUANG Yong. Confucian Ethics: Altruistic? Egoistic? Both? Neither?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(2): 217-231.
[6] Selusi Ambrogio. Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger: Reopening a Debate on Ontology and Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 55-71.
[7] Ellen Y. Zhang. The Face/Facelessness of the Other—A Levinasian Reading of the Ethical of the Zhuangzi [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 533-553.
[8] Bo R. Meinertsen. Towards Gratitude to Nature: Global Environmental Ethics for China and the World[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 207-223.
[9] YANG Tongjin. Is There an Identity Crisis in Environmental Ethics?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 195-206.
[10] Timothy O’Leary. Critique, Ethics, and the Apparatus of Experience: A Foucauldian Framework[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 120-136.
[11] Alicia Hennig. Three Different Approaches to Virtue in Business- Aristotle, Confucius, and Lao Zi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 556-586.
[12] Tara Kennedy. The Ethics of Treating Animals as Resources: A Post-Heideggerian Approach[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 463-482.
[13] Teun Tieleman. The Early Stoics and Aristotelian Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 104-121.
[14] Leah Kalmanson,Sarah Mattice. The De of Levinas: Cultivating the Heart-Mind of Radical Passivity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(1): 113-129.
[15] YAO Xinzhong. An Eco-Ethical Interpretation of Confucian Tianren Heyi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(4): 570-585.
Full text