Wikipedia:Peer review/Kantian ethics/archive1

Kantian ethics
This peer review discussion has been closed. I'm considering sending this article to FAC soon. I've spent the last week and a bit making significant improvements and would now like some outside input.

Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, looks like it’s in pretty good shape. I think you did a good job of simplifying some complicated material. A few comments:
 * ”Central to Kant's construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, an imperative which” Some close repetition of “imperative” here
 * ”American philosopher Louis Pojman has cited Lutheran Pietism, the political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau,” You should standardize whether you put “the” in front of their description and names.
 * The lead seems a bit long to me. I’d look for ways to cut less important information out of it.
 * ”Kant's approach to sexual ethics emerged from his view that humans should never be used merely as a means to an end, leading him to regard sexual activity as degrading” Did he condemn all sexual activity? That’s what it looks like in this sentence.
 * Check for overuse of “Kant”, at times I think you can switch to pronouns instead.
 * ”This does not mean that we can never treat a human as a means to an end, but that when I do, I also treat them as an end in themselves.” You switch from “we” to “I” here.
 * ”The former are classified as perfect duties; the latter as imperfect.” I don’t think the semicolon is used correctly here.
 * ”Kant believed that rationality is required, but that it should be concerned about morality and good will. “ You switch tense here.
 * Could you go into more detail in the Schopenhauer section? I’m a bit unclear as to how they differ in judging an act as ethical or not.
 * ”It regards deontological ethics as a danger to Christian morality which Servais Pinckaers believes align more closely with the virtue ethics of Aristotle.” Could you clarify a little what Pinckaers believes aligns with virtue ethics? I think I understand the sentence, but you might try to tweak it a bit.
 * Ok, I'll try to make some copyedits and add more comments soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Has the part about Animal ethics been critiqued by philosophers from an Animal Rights perspective? (Like Peter Singer or somebody).
 * "Margaret Eaton argued that a medical professional must be happy for other medics" Is "medics" the right word to use here?
 * Just a thought, but a spin-off article about Kantian sexual ethics might be interesting to work on.
 * "The good will, on the other hand, is always good" Should this be "The good will" or just "Good will"?
 * "which only acts on people who have a specific desire or interest ('go to the doctor' applies only if I want to get well')" Not sure if we need examples like this in the lead.
 * Do the Influences on Kantian ethics need to be attributed to Pojman, or is he just repeating commonly held beliefs?
 * I think you use single quotes in a few places where double quotes would be preferred.
 * "If one would be willing for such a rule to be a universal law, by which everyone acted, then the act is permissible; if not, then it is not" I'm not sure we need the part after the semicolon.
 * "Kant argued that rational beings can never be treated merely as a means to an ends; their ends must be equally respected." I'm not sure what you mean by "their ends" here.
 * "This dichotomy was necessary for Kant because it could explain the autonomy of a human agent (although..." I think you forgot to close the parenthesis here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also watch for repetition of "Habermas" in a couple places.
 * " His formula of humanity as an ends in itself" Is the grammar right here?
 * Also, could you clarify what it means to treat people as "ends"?
 * The second paragraph of the lead doesn't seem to flow very well, seems to jump to a variety of different points. Not sure what the best way to change it would be, but might be worth thinking about.
 * "Kant's Formula of Autonomy" Are the capitals correct here?
 * "either agents construct laws for everything, making morality a burden and leaving people dispassionate about it, or agents construct too few laws, leaving the, apathetic to goods which are not construed as obligatory." looks like something got mixed up here.
 * Should standardize foetus vs fetus.
 * Maybe try to pin down what the most common objection to Kantian ethics is? I think it might have something to do with the lying bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Should standardize "G. W. F. Hegel" with "G.W.F. Hegel".
 * "Political philosopher John Rawls was influenced by Kant's ethical theory, which influenced" is there a way around the "influenced ... influenced" here?
 * "To achieve this fairness, he proposed that society should be ordered from behind a veil of ignorance, from which no one knows the position they will take in society." I find this sentence somewhat confusing.
 * "Jeremy Sugarman has argued that Kant's formulation of autonomy has meant that patients are always treated as people with their own reasonable goals and never as ways of promoting the goals of society." This sentence sounds a bit oddly phrased to me.
 * Ok, that's it from me for now. Overall I think it is in good shape, there are a few places though where I found it confusing or light on explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's really helpful. I'll go through that over the next week or two (slowly - busy at the moment with other things too). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)