Authority of Reflection 1

Authority of Reflection

Student Number
 Authority of Reflection 2

Introduction

Christine Korsgaard had many arguments about human life, not just the life of the very

person but also the life of the people in the surrounding. Korsgaard argues that through Practical

identity, it is possible for the individual to value life and take actions that are relevant to

maintaining human dignity. Apart from Practical Identity that Korsgaard calls upon, she also calls

upon the identification of all moral identity that forms the basis for all forms of identity. The

purpose of the paper is to query if the human can behave in a certain way without the need for a

practical identity. She argues that there is the need for practical identity to determine the

conception of an individual in a manner that if an individual loses the Practical Identity, they

would lose grip on themselves and may lose even the desire to live. The paper explores the fact

that human may not require a practical identity to the extent that individual acts and decisions are

not acted upon at all. Is it possible to value the lives of ourselves or the lives of others when there

is no Practical Identity to measure it against? Or is there anything higher or lesser than Practical

Identity that may be used in making a judgement of an individual.

In trying to understand the normative questions in the most natural way, there are laws

which need to be followed, the laws include the laws of moral philosophy, there are many laws

which try to explain normativity, one of the laws include the Voluntarists, which simply explain

normativity: human are subject to laws, the laws individuals are subjected to include the laws of

morality. Every individual must observe the laws as prescribed by the lawgivers if a question

comes in why the human need to be subject to the l was, several questions start emerging which

ends in an endless regress. Since nature does not allow regress, hence people try to rationalize the

existence of normativity by postulating the existence of entities such as reasons, values and

obligations. This normativity forbids further questioning as to why human is subject to another
 Authority of Reflection 3

human while observing the law and the rules that shape the society. Does it mean that Practical

Identity is also shaped by these laws and does not intuitively build itself to define a person?

Without the law, can somebody be a different person and become a different person without the

laws? It means that the institutions of laws show that human has accepted the existence of entities

and to avoid further explanation, they claim that morality is justified.

Another approach to explaining normativity is through the reflective endorsement theory

that explains that morality is grounded on human nature and not on the values set by the

institutions of authority. They explain that the values and obligations are as a result of the moral

dispositions and sentiments. In justifying the dispositions, human try to justify the fact that they

are good and they are not necessarily tracking the truth. The social structure is better off with the

normative behavior than without the values. They flourish people’s self-interests and promote

human social behavior. The normative question, which comes in to question, is why humans are

obliged to behave in a given way. The definition of the normative behavior goes as early as Kant,

Kant reasons that a particular action should be justified and should be good. Each of the arguments

represented above presents an explanation and test for normativity before it is adopted for action.

Kant’s approach is using reflective endorsement.

The theory of normativity borrows a lot from Kantian Moral Disposition. Korsgaard (1996) argues

that there are two approaches; the first approach is that autonomy is the source of obligation; the

second argument is that every human has a moral obligation to the human race. The two arguments

assume that all obligations are moral and that the commitments in their nature they cannot conflict.

To support her arguments about human obligations, philosophers have supported the fact that the

human mind is self-conscious. Human has a mind that is internally luminous and its contents; the

mind has some knowledge of self-being. The fact that the human mind is self-conscious. This
 Authority of Reflection 4

means that the human mind is being thoughtful. Which is characteristics of all human, every

human has a structured mind that gives room for a thoughtful mind. When compared to other

animals, a human mind is superior, other animals have their attention fully fixed on the world, and

all their desires are fixed on the current world.

In contrast to humans, they are not conscious of their actions. Human turn perceptions and desires

into mental activities and human is conscious of these activities. The conclusion here is that the

arguments that show how humanity is bound by categorical imperative do not show that humanity

is also bound by moral law and to do that, the arguments must assume that the agent is an instant

of the human.

This gives humans the problem of normative; the conscious feeling of defining what is

right and what is wrong. A human can turn their attention to their mental activities and another

capacity to distance themselves from the actions and question the actions if they are right or

wrong. It is very probable to believe that human can bring their actions into question. When the

impulse is brought into view, there is a certain distance which needs to be reflected, human will

find themselves with a powerful impulse that forces human to act, to judge their actions and

choose to believe their actions or not. The reflective mind, Raz (1978) believes, is not dominated

by desire and perception alone. There is the need for reason, without reason it cannot commit itself

to go forward with the activities.

If this problem originates from reflections of a human mind, there should be a solution

somewhere in the same reflection. If the desires and the perceptions cannot withstand the scrutiny

from reflection, the solution is that they may withstand and there are reasons, which shows that

they do. The reason is defined as the reflective success, in this chapter (Korsgaard, 1996, p98)
 Authority of Reflection 5

good and right are also taken to be normative words. Everything that gives reasons must refer to a

reflective success. For example when a person exclaims Right! Right! It means that they are

satisfied and they have successfully reflected on the actions. Korsgaard (1996, p98) argues that

should there be skepticism is a solution given to problems that reflections set to be insoluble.

When a solution cannot be found, the problems that the worry cannot be found comes in, and this

is what Kant called the “Unconditioned”.

Reflective mind in terms of freedom

The second solution to reflective actions can be described in terms of freedom. The mind

has a reflective behavior. Therefore, the human must act. Kant explains that human cannot

conceive a reason, which has a binding from outside with respect to its judgement. If the desire

from the external world is judgement, then the reflective mind has to endorse the desire before the

mind, and the body can act on the desire. The reflective mind must argue with itself and give the

desire as a reason in which to act. The desire must be made the maxim for the body to take action,

and although human is bound by the desire to act, the mind and the body acts freely on the desire.

The first example of the application of reflection on desires is when a person desires to play or run

first. It is probable that an independent individual might predict the actions of the individual by

telling which action the individual will undertake. Still, the person has to reflect on what to do

before doing it. The problem with determinism is that if individuals knew they were determined to

act, they would end up doing nothing and it is laughable to argue that they were determined to do

nothing.

There is a possibility that the person would act differently. For example without reflection

and a person quietly sits in a chair, and he believes that his actions are predetermined, he could as
 Authority of Reflection 6

well sit and wait to see what next actions could he be doing. What will happen next? The person

would be sitting pretty on the chair just as correctly guessed. If a person predicts that an individual

will go to work and they go to work, it will be probable that they go to work. When they go to

work, they do it freely, and if they choose to go to play, they had been forewarned in their minds

be the reflection, and they still choose to ignore the warning and continue going to play instead of

going to work. If there is a way the prediction can truly affect the outcome of the actions of an

individual, the person must be aware of the prediction otherwise they would be wrong. The

prediction must form part of the reflection. The prediction may happen, but it should not diminish

the special freedom of a person. The work of prediction should be to warn our self and increase the

chances of making the right decision rather than to diminish the self-control. Therefore,

determinism is not any threat to freedom.

The notion that determinism can threaten freedom. They are not talking about any practical

problem, but the way knowledge can diminish the freedom of an individual. If knowledge could be

a threat to freedom could be a threat to responsibility. Freedom can be explained as the ability to

do otherwise, not the wish to ought to do otherwise. No single human can change the past. The

freedom that is discovered from a reflection is not a theoretical property of human that can be seen

from the outside world, and that could be affected by the third party's deliberations. Form the

deliberate perspective, the thoughts provide users with options that human may take or leave, and

this means that with the thoughts from the human deliberation point of view, our options are not

real, real can be defined as things that the scientist view as interfering with the third-personality

that affect our choices.

The same point of an argument presented in this by Korsgaard (1996, p98) shows that the reasons

are not real (Korsgaard, 1996, p98). People do not need reasons to carry out specific tasks and
 Authority of Reflection 7

options because all actions are deliberated through reflections. There is no need for giving the

scientific explanations of human actions, instead describe the conditions where people find

themselves when they have a reflection of what they need to do. The author (Korsgaard, 1996,

p98) tends not to agree that the experience of freedom cannot be explained. The explanation can

be through a structural reflective consciousness. It is not through a metaphysical experience of

self that the explanation can come through. When using a scientific point of view, some ideas

could be driven from deduction that may not be true. There is nothing that is so real than the fact

that human makes choices and decisions through free will or under the idea of freedom of the

mind. When a desire comes, there is a choice to take it or leave it, but nothing is forcing the human

to make the choices.

Reason and reflective mind

The reflective reasoning means success, therefore if a human desire to act, they may have

to endorse the desire to act on the desire. The idea of reason comes in during the evaluation of the

best course of action. The claim that whatever is taken as the action from the set of desires could

be the normative course. The problem with this argument is the notion against realism. It is

questionable if the desire inherits from something else. The problem this time is what makes the

chosen action to be normative and what makes it be the source of action. The regress that was

avoided previously threatens to come in. Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p98) described this type of

problem concerning freedom. Kant defines free will as a rational causality which effective without

the help of an outside force. According to Kant, the free will must be self-determining including

the personal desire and inclination of the person. Although they are said to be a causality, it must

be acting according to some rule of law. Although the test does not give the whole content of
 Authority of Reflection 8

morality, it is not to say that the test does not have any content at all, for there are some rules that

abide by it.

It is difficult to derive where the law comes from. Kant has a solution for this; According to

Korsgaard (Korsgaard, 1996, p98) if the law comes from outside the will then the will is not free.

For the will to be free, it must make the law for itself, and the reflective mind has a law, there is

nothing it can derive the reason. Therefore it may not have any reason for making one law over the

other. According to Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p98), the imperative, which is represented by the

Universal law, tells citizens of the Kingdom of Ends to act on a maxim which could be a law. This

Universal Law is the law of free will. To completely arrive at this answer, it is important to

compare the content of Categorical Imperative and the problems facing the free will.

To begin with, the problem facing the free will is described first: the will must be free, and

therefore it must not be subjected to a law, it, therefore, means that the will is the law itself. It is

not in the interest of the paper to define what law is; it has to be a law. Secondly, consider the

content of categorical imperative as shown in the Universal Law. When people choose a

categorical imperative, the choice is made as a free will. The choice made should be driven by a

desire that is not got from the person himself. When the principle is not driven from desire, then

the principle remains the simple one proposed by Korsgaard: as a Universal law, choose what you

can. The answer is similar to the one endorsed by Kant: people endorse only the desires that are

compatible with the maxim that they will as a universal law. To give the argument another

reasonable twist, that the reflective structure of human consciousness requires all human beings to

identify themselves with a given law that will govern choices they make. The law will be

described in the categorical imperative. The problem Korsgaard has to contend with is whether

identifying with the law is similar to using the principle, according to the traditional approach to
 Authority of Reflection 9

daily lives, the process of identification cannot be the same as using, because a person has to

identify before they use the principle.

The work of the categorical imperative is choosing the law to apply, the constraint of

choice lies in the fact that it has to be in the form of law, as defined earlier, what makes it difficult

is the definition of the law for it has to be a law. It is, therefore, to conclude that Categorical

imperative is the law of free will. The definition of moral law negates the gains in defining the

categorical imperative and describes it as empty formalism. It does not impose any external

problem with the free will's actions, but it arises from the nature of the will itself. The law defines

what the free will must do for it to be defined as free will. The free will must choose a maxim and

regard it as a law. There are two kinds of law that is not defined by Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p139).

In the Kantian system, the moral law is the law called Kingdom Ends; the Republic of rational

beings. The maxim that the moral law tells the human race to act upon is the one that argues that

all rational beings can work together in a working and cooperative system. From the Kantian Law,

the categorical imperative is a law of free will, but there is no evidence that the Kant (Korsgaard,

1996, p139) connects the moral law to the free will neither does he argue that the law of the free

will is the moral law. Every law can be called Universal law, but this does not answer the question

that describes of which law the free will ascribe to. There are two solutions here if the law is the

law of free will is the same as the lawyer acting on desire, then the desire can be described as the

law of free will. Then the desire becomes the free will. It this is the law that defines the person's

life, then the person can be said to be acting on egoism. The law that applies to every human is the

law that can be called Universal moral law.

The definition of moral law negates the gains in defining the categorical imperative and

describes it as empty formalism. This, in turn, means that defining moral law is also an empty
 Authority of Reflection 10

formalism. It is difficult to justify the second claim, although the first has some basis. According to

Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p98), the Universal law could be tested against the Kingdom of Ends by

taking law and finding if there is any contradiction in using it as a law which all rational human

beings can agree and act upon. Although the test does not give the whole content of morality, it is

not to say that the test does not have any content at all, for there are some rules that abide by it.

Even if the test by Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p98) does not completely determine the laws of the

Kingdom of Ends, there is still some content in the moral law. The conclusion here is that the

arguments that show how humanity is bound by categorical imperative do not show that humanity

is also bound by moral law and to do that, the arguments must assume that the agent is a citizen of

the Kingdom of Ends.

Reflective structure of the mind

The people who reason that the human mind is luminous and is transparent to itself uses

the term self-consciousness. The term is appropriate because human consciousness is a direct

encounter with itself. There are those who think that a human mind has a reflective structure, they

are also right but for a given reason. This, in turn, means that defining moral law is also an empty

formalism. It is difficult to justify the second claim, although the first has some basis. According to

Korsgaard (Raz, 2011), the reflective structure is a source of self-consciousness because it forces

human to Korsgaard have a self-conception. Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p98) argues that the reflective

structure of the mind has a lot to do with the what it is to be like to be reflectively conscious, this is

because being self-reflective forces people to be conscious but it does not have a proof of the

existence of the metaphysical world. From the third person’s point of view, what happens when

someone makes a choice is that the strongest of his desires win; this is not the way when the mind

deliberates.
 Authority of Reflection 11

When someone deliberates, it is as if there is something over and above all, something that

is described as the person, that chooses which action to act upon. The meaning of this is that the

principle that is used to decide which action is the best is what is regarded as self, and it is seen as

being expressive of self. This is what St Paul's phrase of law to yourself (Korsgaard, 1996, p139)

come in. When a friend thinks of herself as a Citizen in the Kingdom of Ends defined by Kant

(Korsgaard, 1996, p160), she might also think of herself as a friend, lover or family member, and

they will think that they are stewards of their interests; hence she will be an egoist. When she

thinks of herself as a slave of circumstances, then she is wanton. Depending on what she chooses

for herself, she will decide if it is the Law of the Kingdom of Ends or the Law of a smaller

minority, a law of egoism or the law of wanton that is the law she will follow.

The question of Personal Identity cannot be regarded as a theoretical question. It is a view

of what matters as an inescapable scientific fact of a person. The personal identity can be

understood to be a description under which a person values; a situation under which a person finds

life to be worth living and the actions to be worth undertaking. The conception can be called the

conception of Practical Identity. The concept of Practical Identity is very complex, and any human

being is a jumble of the mix of practical identity. For example have a man, woman, or a lady, child

that has subscribed to a given religion, a member of a given professional group member, a lover or

a friend, they will be inclined to think in a given manner. The major way to express the identity is

to show the world what the identity forbids.

One way of talking about obligation is to have the obligation connected to personal

identity. For example sometimes back, a civilized European could tell another person to act like a

Christian, meaning they should act in a civilized manner. In many quarters of the world, the word

‘Be a man' showing that some duties and obligations are enforced this way, for example being
 Authority of Reflection 12

courageous. Another example is a psychiatrist who is expected not to violate the rights of their

patients. In these cases, the roles define the practical identity, but it is not only in the roles where

practical identity is defined. In many occasions, there are expressions such as "I could not live by

myself", "there is a side of me I cannot live without", in this case, there are two selves here, the

conflicting selves that give contradicting instructions. " are battles I have to fight every day".

Alternatively, when an obligation has been ignored, someone might ask, "Just whom do you think

you are?"

Korsgaard’s Morality and Identity

During her third lecture, Korsgaard (Milgram, 2001) distinguished the categorical imperative and

moral law. There is evidence that the categorical imperative has imposed the minimal condition of

free choice and the choice has to be guided by the principles that people give themselves in the

form of the rule of law. A free will must choose a maxim that is regarded as law. The moral law,

therefore, must be a kind of law that applies to all rational beings could agree to use to act together

in a cooperative system, what Kant (Milgram, 2001) called the Kingdom of End. Korsgaard

(Korsgaard, 1996, p98) does make a distinction but argues that Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p98) does

not make the same distinction between the moral law and the categorical imperative and giving

insight to the awareness will bring some insight to the fact that there is incompleteness when it

comes to the description of moral law given by Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p160). Kant shows that

any free will has a boundary within the moral law but makes a weaker claim that the citizens of

Kingdom of End are bound by categorical imperative. Korsgaard (1996, p163) therefore partially

agrees with Kant that he may have got it right on the fact that normativity originates from the free

will structure and the free will is bound by categorical imperative. Korsgaard (1996, p169)

therefore shows that the normal human being not only stand under categorical imperative but they
 Authority of Reflection 13

are also guided by moral law. According to Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p98), the Universal law could

be tested against the Kingdom of Ends by taking law and finding if there is any contradiction in

using it as a law, which all rational human beings can agree and act upon.

The first part of Korsgaard (1996, p98) argument is parallel to the Kant’s discussion that

the human freedom definition is that human is not forced to act in the way the way rational human

being act. A human brain can make a step back and refrain from the decisions which they have

taken, and they have the potential to see their lives of the continuous exercise of the capacity. As

the human, in their daily lives, they have a problem of continuously failing to endorse or endorse a

given action. It is not odd to say that human desire is not universal and it varies in respect to place,

something that Kant proponents agree with. Korsgaard and Raz (1978) argues that anything that is

outside the will is described as an alien. The description of alien goes as far as including the

desires and inclination of the person in question. Kant argues that an ethical agent should not see

their inclination and desires as alien to their decision making; something they should keep

distance. It is therefore hard to distance one's self from these aliens and chose one to endorse as a

reason for a given action. Since according to Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p98), all desires, including

personal desires are treated aliens, therefore one cannot rely on one desire to decide to act on

another desire.

One example, in this case, is when one wants to listen to music, it is possible that the action

to listen to music will be endorsed as well as the desire to listen to music. In this case, the

reflection would fail, and it would be like the person is trying to distance themselves from their

desires. It would be hard to use the higher-order desires since this would be the same as picking

one desire without having to follow any antecedent principle of choice. The how does one endorse
 Authority of Reflection 14

one principle desire as a choice for action? Kant has an answer; the person must have a principle

that is derived from the desire, and that is given by the person himself (Korsgaard, 1996, p98).

Conclusion
The connection is also found in the concept of integrity. According to Etymology, integrity

is defined as what makes something one. To be an entity, to act as a unit, to be anything; in the

metaphysical world is called integrity. The term is mostly applied to refer to a person who lives up

to their standards because human gauge an individual on the expectations from the person,

therefore they have to live up to the expectations to retain their integrity. This will make human

the person they are expected to be. The concept of human self is the most important and gives

unconditional obligations and violating the obligations results in losing the integrity of an

individual. When an individual loses integrity, they lose their identity; this means that they are

unable to be who they are, they cannot think of themselves to live the kind of life they expect to

live and find their lives worth living and all their actions worth undertaking. In other words, the

person is as good as dead when they lose their integrity. Even if the test by Kant (Korsgaard, 1996,

p98) does not completely determine the laws of the Kingdom of Ends, there is still some content in

the moral law. Therefore, if reasons originate from the reflective endorsement, then the obligations

arise from reflective rejection.

All obligations can be said to be unconditional when they arise from reflective rejection as

describes. An obligation will arise in the form of a reaction to the threat of loss of Practical

Identity. Korsgaard (1996, p139) argues that there are two conditions under which an obligation

complication springs. One is the identity, which needs to be shed and another one that needs to be

retained as a personal identity. One example is the case of a solder, a rational being will not kill

another, but a conditioned soldier will obey their master.

 Authority of Reflection 15

Another disturbing example is that a person can decide to stop being himself or herself for

a while and get back later, this temptation has a destabilizing effect on an individual's obligation.

A person should always be aware of what they are expected to do otherwise their integrity will fall

apart. Plato supported this in his Republic IX (Bauer, Varga, and Mieth, 2017). The most annoying

part is that people can once in a while do actions that may taint their integrity without actually

losing their integrity. Kant (Korsgaard, 1996, p139) goes ahead to say that when an individual

makes an exception to the Kingdom of Ends, there is an exception that is made to the individual.

The violation is a result of the exception because all individuals in the Kingdom of End can apply

the same exception. The solution to violating the law of the Kingdom of Ends can only be done

through maintaining integrity. The problem of having high integrity does not come from the

fragility of the integrity but the stability of the reflections. In this case, the agent is intentionally

violating the law of the Kingdom of End because they can get away with it.

People are therefore encouraged to love their values, at the same time they should have the

values. Therefore, when an individual loves their values, it defines the depth of obligation. Hume

(Milgram, 2001) agrees that the obligation is conditional when it concerns that matters is when it is

deep. The shallowness in obligation can give rise to problems, and people must, therefore, commit

to what will be regarded as second-order integrity, a solution that will not let ideas get out of hand.

The human cannot lose integrity by making an exception to the obligation every time, and the

problem is that when the exception reiterates then a new obligation is defined. That is the reason

why even the people with the most refined characters end up occasionally and knowingly making

exceptions to their obligations and do what is wrong.

 Authority of Reflection 16

References

Korsgaard, C., 1996. The authority of reflection. The sources of normativity, 90, pp.97-98.

Korsgaard, C., 1996. The authority of reflection. The sources of normativity, 90, pp.139-149.

Korsgaard, C., 1996. The authority of reflection. The sources of normativity, 90, pp.150-169.

Milgram, E. ed., 2001. Varieties of practical reasoning. Harvard University Press.

Raz, J. (1978). Practical reasoning. Oxford Eng.: Oxford University Press.

Raz, J. (2011). Between authority and interpretation. Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press.

Bauer, K., Varga, S. and Mieth, C. eds., 2017. Dimensions of Practical Necessity: "Here I Stand. I

Can Do No Other. Springer.