Pop Quiz: Are you reading the material?

All of the following questions are taken from the paper that was assigned for today: “Inclination
and Duty: The Groundwork Revisited.”

1. True or False: The author of this paper finds it necessary to appeal to works of Kant beyond the
Groundwork, to defend Kant against the ‘coldness charge.’

2. True of False: A good deal of this essay focuses on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason,
showing that if we read this work in concert with Kant’s Groundwork, we will be better equipped
to defend Kant against the ‘coldness charge.’

3. The “Coldness Charge” against Kant maintains that Kant advocates a morality that:

A. Is inconsistent with our moral intuitions because it fails to recognize that consequences are to
be taken into account when evaluating the moral worth of actions.
B. Accords moral worth only to actions grudgingly performed.
C. Fails to recognize the authority of religious texts and the importance of God in adjudicating
moral disputes.
D. Does not acknowledge that honesty is of supreme importance when determining the worth of
moral actions.

4. True of False: The author of this paper thinks that Stanford’s Allen Wood has failed to
adequately defend Kant because Wood confuses Kant’s moral philosophy with that of Rousseau.

5. In the section of this paper entitled “The Groundwork in Context” the author argues that one
can better understand Kant’s treatment of the inclinations in the Groundwork if the text is read
within its historical context. The author of this paper contends that much of Kant’s treatment of
the inclinations in the Groundwork should be understood as a direct response to the philosophy
of:
A. Mill
B. Aristotle
C. Rene Descartes
D. Hume

6. The author of this essay anticipates an objection which he calls the “Too Narrow Objection.”
This objection states that:
A. The author has treated inclination in a very limited sense, paying attention only to inclination
as a physiological disposition, rather than inclination as subject to conditioning and training.
B. The author’s understanding of Allen Wood’s interpretation of Kant is much too narrow, as it
fails to recognize just how influential Rousseau was on Kant.
C. The author’s interpretation of Kant’s four philanthropists fails to properly take into account
much of Kant’s epistemology.
D. The author’s interpretation of Kant is too narrowly focused on the historical disputes of Kant’s
time.