Book contents
- Fichte’s System of Ethics
- Cambridge Critical Guides
- Fichte’s System of Ethics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations and Translations
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Fichte’s Ethics as Kantian Ethics
- Chapter 2 Fichte on Normativity in the Late Jena Period (1796–1799)
- Chapter 3 Fichte on Autonomy
- Chapter 4 Feeling, Drive, and the Lower Capacity of Desire
- Chapter 5 Fichte and the Path from “Formal” to “Material” Freedom
- Chapter 6 Fichte on the Content of Conscience
- Chapter 7 Fichte’s Theory of Moral Evil
- Chapter 8 Embodiment and Freedom
- Chapter 9 Ethics as Theory of Society
- Chapter 10 My Duties and the Morality of Others
- Bibliography
- Index
- Cambridge Critical Guides
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 May 2021
Book contents
- Fichte’s System of Ethics
- Cambridge Critical Guides
- Fichte’s System of Ethics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations and Translations
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Fichte’s Ethics as Kantian Ethics
- Chapter 2 Fichte on Normativity in the Late Jena Period (1796–1799)
- Chapter 3 Fichte on Autonomy
- Chapter 4 Feeling, Drive, and the Lower Capacity of Desire
- Chapter 5 Fichte and the Path from “Formal” to “Material” Freedom
- Chapter 6 Fichte on the Content of Conscience
- Chapter 7 Fichte’s Theory of Moral Evil
- Chapter 8 Embodiment and Freedom
- Chapter 9 Ethics as Theory of Society
- Chapter 10 My Duties and the Morality of Others
- Bibliography
- Index
- Cambridge Critical Guides
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Fichte's System of EthicsA Critical Guide, pp. 221 - 228Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Ameriks, Karl. 2000. Kant and the Fate of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. 2003. “On Being Neither Post- Nor Anti-Kantian: A Reply to Breazeale and Larmore Concerning The Fate of Autonomy.” Inquiry 46: 272–292.Google Scholar
Annen, Martin. 1997. Das Problem der Wahrhaftigkeit in der Philosophie der deutschen Aufklärung: Ein Beitrag zur Ethik und zum Naturrecht des 18. Jahrhunderts. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Bacin, Stefano. 2013. “‘The Perfect Duty to Oneself Merely as a Moral Being’ (TL 6: 428–437).” In Kant’s “Tugendlehre.” A Comprehensive Commentary, edited by Trampota, Andreas, Sensen, Oliver, and Timmermann, Jens, 245–268. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bacin, Stefano. 2015a. “Kant’s Lectures on Ethics and Baumgarten’s Moral Philosophy.” In Kant’s Lectures on Ethics: A Critical Guide, edited by Denis, Lara and Sensen, Oliver, 15–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bacin, Stefano. 2015b. “Erkenntnis, praktische.” In Kant-Lexikon, edited by Willaschek, Marcus, Mohr, Georg, Stolzenberg, Jürgen, and Bacin, Stefano, 549–551. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bacin, Stefano. 2017. “‘Ein Bewußtsein, das selbst Pflicht ist’: Fichtes unkantische Auffassung des Gewissens und ihr philosophischer Kontext.” In Fichte und seine Zeit, vol. 2: Streitfragen, edited by d’Alfonso, Matteo, De Pascale, Carla, Fuchs, Erich, and Ivaldo, Marco, 306–325. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Baur, Michael, trans. 2000. Foundations of Natural Right according to the Principles of the Wissenschaftslehre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beiser, Frederick C. 2002. German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–1801. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bowman, Curtis and Estes, Yolanda, trans. 2010. J. G. Fichte and the Atheism Dispute (1798–1800). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel, trans. 1988. Fichte: Early Philosophical Writings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel, trans. 1992. Foundations of Transcendental Philosophy (Wissenschaftslehre) nova methodo. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel, trans. 1994. Introductions to the Wissenschaftslehre and Other Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel, trans. 2001a. “J. G. Fichte: Review of Friedrich Heinrich Gebhard, On Ethical Goodness as Disinterested Benevolence (Gotha: Ettinger, 1792).” Philosophical Forum 32 (4): 297–310.Google Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel, trans. 2001b. “J. G. Fichte: Review of Leonhard Creuzer, Skeptical Reflections on the Freedom of the Will (Giessen: Heyer: 1793).” Philosophical Forum 32 (4): 289–296.Google Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel. 2003. “Two Cheers for Post-Kantianism: A Response to Karl Ameriks.” Inquiry 46: 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel and Zöller, Günter. 2005. “Introduction.” In The System of Ethics: According to the Principles of the Wissenschaftslehre, edited by Fichte, J. G., vii–xxxiii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel and Zöller, Günter, trans. 2005. The System of Ethics: According to the Principles of the Wissenschaftslehre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel. 2012. “In Defense of Fichte’s Account of Ethical Deliberation.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 94 (2): 178–207.Google Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel. 2015. “Der systematische Ort der Sittenlehre Fichtes.” In Fichtes System der Sittenlehre: Ein kooperativer Kommentar, edited by Merle, Jean-Christophe and Schmidt, A., 267–293. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Breazeale, Daniel. 2018. “In Defense of Conscience: Fichte vs. Hegel.” Fichte-Studien 45: 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brink, David O. 2019. “Normative Perfectionism and the Kantian Tradition.” Philosophers’ Imprint 19 (45): 1–28.Google Scholar
Burman, Erik Olof. 1891. Die Transcendentalphilosophie Fichte’s und Schelling’s dargestellt und erklärt. Uppsala: Almqvist.Google Scholar
Cesa, Claudio. 1986. “Notstaat: Considerazioni su un termine della filosofia politica di Hegel.” In Scritti per Mario Delle Piane, 135–151. Napoli: ESI.Google Scholar
Cesa, Claudio. 1992. “In tema di intersoggettività.” In J.G. Fichte e l’idealismo trascendentale, 189–233. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Cesa, Claudio. 2013. Verso l’eticità: Saggi di storia della filosofia. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.Google Scholar
Clarke, Samuel. 1706. A Discourse Concerning the Unchangeable Obligations of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Revelation. London.Google Scholar
De Pascale, Carla. 1995. Etica e diritto: La filosofia pratica di Fichte e le sue ascendenze kantiane. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
De Pascale, Carla. 2003. “Die Vernunft ist praktisch”. Fichtes Ethik und Rechtslehre im System. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
De Pascale, Carla. 2015. “Die allgemeinen Pflichten (§§ 22–25).” In Fichtes System der Sittenlehre: Ein kooperativer Kommentar, edited by Merle, Jean-Christophe and Schmidt, Andreas, 183–202. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Denis, Lara. 1999. “Kant on the Perfection of Others.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 37: 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, Simone. 2018. “White and Prosocial Lies.” In The Oxford Handbook of Lying, edited by Meibauer, Jörg, 289–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Düsing, Edith. 1986. Intersubjektivität und Selbstbewusstsein: Behaviouristische, phänomenologische und idealistische Begründungstheorien bei Mead, Schütz, Fichte und Hegel. Köln: Dinter.Google Scholar
Dreier, James. 1993. “Structures of Normative Theories.” The Monist 76: 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, Johann August. 1799. Ueber den Gott des Herrn Professor Fichtes und den Götzen seiner Gegner: Eine ruhige Prüfung seiner Appellation an das Publikum in einigen Briefe. Halle: Hemmerdge and Schwetschke.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kuno. 1869. Geschichte der neuern Philosophie: Fichte und seine Zeit. Heidelberg: Wassermann.Google Scholar
Fonnesu, Luca. 1993. Antropologia e idealismo: La destinazione dell’uomo nell’etica di Fichte. Roma: Laterza.Google Scholar
Fonnesu, Luca. 1996. “Die Aufhebung des Staates bei Fichte.” Fichte-Studien 11: 85–97.Google Scholar
Fonnesu, Luca. 1999. “Metamorphosen der Freiheit in Fichtes Sittenlehre.” In Zur Einheit der Lehre Fichtes, edited by Ivaldo, Marco and Villacañas, Jose, 255–271. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Fonnesu, Luca. 2004. “Pflicht und Pflichtenlehre: Fichtes Auseinandersetzung mit der Aufklärung und mit Kant.” In Fichte und die Aufklärung, edited by De Pascale, Carla, Fuchs, Erich, Ivaldo, Marco, and Zöller, Gunter, 133–146. Hildesheim and New York: Olms.Google Scholar
Fonnesu, Luca. 2010. Per una moralità concreta: Studi sulla filosofia classica tedesca. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Fugate, Courtney D. and Hymers, John, eds. 2018. Baumgarten and Kant on Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. 1999. “Morality as Consistency in Living: Korsgaard’s Kantian Lectures.” Ethics 110: 140–164.Google Scholar
Goh, Kien-How. 2012. “Between Determinism and Indeterminism: The Freedom of Choice in Fichte’s System der Sittenlehre.” European Journal of Philosophy 23 (3): 439–455.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob Grimm, Wilhelm. 1905. Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm, Bd.X.1. Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Green, Garrett, trans. 2010. Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gregor, Mary J. trans. 1996. Kant: Practical Philosophy, edited by Gregor, Mary J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2019. “Freedom as an End in Itself: Fichte on Ethical Duties.” In The Palgrave Fichte Handbook, edited by Hoeltzel, Steven, 257–283. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1988. “Moralität und Sittlichkeit: Treffen Hegels Einwände gegen Kant auch auf die Diskursethik zu?” Revue internationale de philosophie 42: 320–340.Google Scholar
Harris, Henry Silton. 1972. Hegel’s Development: Toward the Sunlight, 1770–1801. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Peter and Lachs, Joseph, trans. 1982. The Science of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1970. Werke in 20 Bänden, edited by Moldenhauer, Eva and Michel, Karl Markus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1801/1977. The Difference between Fichte’s and Schelling’s System of Philosophy, translated by Walter Cerf and H.S. Harris. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1802/1970. Über die wissenschaftlichen Behandlungsarten des Naturrechts, seine Stelle in der praktischen Philosophie und sein Verhältnis zu den positiven Rechtswissenschaften (Werke, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1970, vol. II). Translated by T.M. Knox, introduction by H.B. Acton, foreword by J.R. Silber, Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1821/1970. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts (Werke, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1970, vol. VII). Translated by T.M. Knox, revised, edited and introduced by Stephen Houlgate. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1992. Der Grund im Bewußtsein: Untersuchungen zu Hölderlins Denken (1794–1795). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 2003. Between Kant and Hegel: Lectures on German Idealism, edited by Pacini, David S.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 2004. Grundlegung aus dem Ich: Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte des Idealismus, Tübingen-Jena (1790–1794). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried. 2013. “Kantian Ethics.” In The Oxford Handbook of the History of Ethics, edited by Crisp, Roger, 465–482. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 2011. Das Recht der Freiheit: Grundriss einer demokratischen Sittlichkeit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hornig, Gottfried. 1980. “Perfektibilität: Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte und Bedeutung dieses Begriffs in der deutschsprachigen Literatur.” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 24: 221–257.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1739–40/1888. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, Terence. 2004. “Kantian Autonomy.” In Agency and Action, edited by Hyman, John and Steward, Helen, 137–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, Terence. 2009. The Development of Ethics, Volume 3: From Kant to Rawls. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobi, Friedrich Heinrich. 1798/1994. “Von Religion, Lehrmeinungen, Gebrauchen.” In Johann Gottfried von Herder, Werke in zehn Bänden 9/1: Theologische Schriften, edited by Bultmann, Christoph and Zippert, Thomas, 725–857. Frankfurt: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Wilhelm G. 2017. “Review of Merle and Schmidt 2015.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 99: 233–236.Google Scholar
James, David. 2011. Fichte’s Social and Political Philosophy: Property and Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
James, David. 2016. “The Political Theology of Fichte’s Staatslehre: Immanence and Transcendence.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 24 (6): 1157–1175.Google Scholar
Katsafanas, Paul. 2015. “Ethics.” In Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-Century German Philosophy, edited by Forster, Michael and Gjesdal, Kristin, 474–493. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kierkegaard, Søren. 1980. The Concept of Anxiety, edited and translated by Anderson, Albert B. and Thomte, Reidar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996. Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kosch, Michelle. 2011. “Formal Freedom in Fichte’s System of Ethics.” Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus/international Yearbook of German Idealism 8: 150–168.Google Scholar
Kosch, Michelle. 2014. “Practical Deliberation and the Voice of Conscience in Fichte’s 1798 System of Ethics.” Philosophers’ Imprint 14: 1–16.Google Scholar
Kosch, Michelle. 2015. “Agency and Self-Sufficiency in Fichte’s Ethics.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91 (2): 348–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauth, Reinhard. 1962. “Le problème de l’interpersonnalité chez Fichte.” Archives de philosophie 25: 325–344.Google Scholar
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. 2005. Philosophical and Theological Writings, edited and translated by H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loewe, Johann Heinrich. 1862. Die Philosophie Fichte’s nach dem Gesammtergebnisse ihrer Entwickelung und in ihrem Verhältnisse zu Kant und Spinoza: Mit einem Anhange ueber den Gottesbegriff Spinoza’s und dessen Schicksale. Stuttgart: Nitzschke.Google Scholar
Macor, Laura Anna. 2013. Die Bestimmung des Menschen: Eine Begriffsgeschichte (1748–1800). Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Maesschalck, Marc. 2015. “Die Lehre von den bedingten Pflichten (§§ 19–21).” In Fichtes System der Sittenlehre: Ein kooperativer Kommentar, edited by Merle, Jean-Christophe and Schmidt, Andreas, 157–182. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Martin, Wayne. 1997. Idealism and Objectivity: Understanding Fichte’s Jena Project, 36–52. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Wayne. 2018. “Fichte’s Creuzer Review and the Transformation of the Free Will Problem.” European Journal of Philosophy 26: 717–729.Google Scholar
Merle, Jean-Christophe and Schmidt, Andreas, eds. 2015. Fichtes System der Sittenlehre: Ein kooperativer Kommentar. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Moggach, Douglas. 2018. “Contextualising Fichte: Leibniz, Kant, and Perfectionist Ethics.” Fichte-Studien 45: 133–153.Google Scholar
Moyar, Dean. 2008. “Unstable Autonomy: Conscience and Judgment in Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 5 (3): 327–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1970. The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Naulin, Paul. 1969. “Philosophie et communication chez Fichte.” Revue internationale de philosophie 23: 410–441.Google Scholar
Neuhouser, Frederick. 1990. Fichte’s Theory of Subjectivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica. 2011. “Théorie de l’éthique et éthique appliquée chez Fichte: Sittenlehre ou Metaphysik der Sitten?” Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 3: 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica. 2012. Memory, History, Justice in Hegel. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica. 2013. “Contradiction in the Ethical World. Hegel’s Challenge for Times of Crisis.” In Freiheit: Akten der Stuttgarter Hegel Kongress 2011, edited by Hindrichs, Gunnar and Honneth, Axel, 627–648. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica. 2015. “Kant’s Pure Ethics and the Problem of Application.” In Politics and Teleology in Kant, edited by Formosa, Paul, Goldman, Avery, and Patrone, Tatiana, 245–261. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica. 2016. “Moral Motivation in Post-Kantian Philosophy: Fichte and Hegel.” In Moral Motivation, edited by Vasiliou, Iakovos, 227–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peperzak, Adriaan. 1982. “Hegels Pflichten- und Tugendlehre.” Hegel-Studien 17: 97–117.Google Scholar
Peperzak, Adriaan. 2001. Modern Freedom. Hegel’s Legal, Moral, and Political Philosophy. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Piché, Claude. 2000. “Le mal radical chez Fichte.” In Fichte: Le moi et la liberté, edited by Goddard, Jean-Christophe. 209–231. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Pinkard, Terry. 2002. German Philosophy 1760–1860. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert. 2008. Hegel’s Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert. 2016. “Über Selbstgesetzgebung.” In Die Aktualität des Deutschen Idealismus, edited by Pippin, Robert, 52–84. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Platner, Ernst. 1782/86. Philosophische Aphorismen: Nebst einigen Anleitungen zur philosophischen Geschichte. Leipzig: Schwickert Verlag.Google Scholar
Preul, Reiner. 1969. Reflexion und Gefühl: Die Theologie Fichtes in seiner vorkantischen Zeit. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rauscher, Frederick. 2002. “Kant’s Moral Anti-Realism.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 40 (3): 477–499.Google Scholar
Reinhard, Franz Volkmar. 1801. System der christlichen Moral. Vol II. 3rd ed. Reutlingen: Grözinger.Google Scholar
Rohs, Peter. 1992. “Der materiale Gehalt des Sittengesetzes.” Fichte-Studien 3: 170–183.Google Scholar
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Josef. 1856ff. Schellings sämmtliche Werke. Stuttgart: Cotta.Google Scholar
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Josef. 1976ff. Historisch-Kritische Ausgabe. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Schick, Friedrike. 2015. “Vermittlungen zwischen Natur und Freiheit–der Naturtrieb in §8 des Systems der Sittenlehre.” In Fichtes System der Sittenlehre: Ein kooperativer Kommentar, edited by Merle, Jean-Christophe and Schmidt, Andreas, 75–92. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1803/2002. “Grundlinien einer Kritik der bisherigen Sittenlehre.” In Kritische Gesamtausgabe, I.4, edited by Herms, Eilert, Meckenstock, Günter, and Pietsch, Michael. 27–357. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schlösser, Ulrich. 2001. Das Erfassen des Einleuchtens: Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre 1804. Berlin: Philo Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Andreas. 2015. “Die Deduktion des Prinzips der Sittlichkeit (§§1–3).” In Fichtes System der Sittenlehre: Ein kooperativer Kommentar, edited by Merle, Jean and Schmidt, Andreas, 39–56. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Siep, Ludwig. 1992. Praktische Philosophie im Deutschen Idealismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Siep, Ludwig. 2009. “Staat und Kirche bei Fichte und Hegel.” In Symposion Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Herkunft und Ausstrahlung seines Denkens. München 5. und 6. März 2009, edited by Beierwaltes, Werner and Fuchs, Erich, 47–63. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Siep, Ludwig. 2010. Aktualität und Grenzen der praktischen Philosophie Hegels: Aufsätze 1997–2009. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Stäudlin, Carl Friedrich. 1798. Grundrisse der Tugend- und Religionslehre zu akademischen Vorlesungen für zukünftige Lehrer in der christlichen Kirche: Erster Theil, welcher die Tugendlehre enthält. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. 2012. Understanding Moral Obligation: Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Süskind, Friedrich Gottlieb. 1794. D. Gottlob Christian Storr’s Bemerkungen über Kant’s philosophische Religionslehre, aus dem Lateinischen: Nebst einigen Bemerkungen des Uebersetzers über den aus Principien der praktischen Vernunft hergeleiteten Ueberzeugungsgrund von der Möglichkeit und Wirklichkeit einer Offenbarung in Beziehung auf Fichtes Versuch einer Critik aller Offenbarung. Tübingen: J. G. Cotta.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens. 2015. “What’s Wrong with ‘Deontology’?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 115: 75–92.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens. forthcoming. Kant on the Supposed Right to Lie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verweyen, Hansjürgen. 1975. Recht und Sittlichkeit in J.G. Fichtes Gesellschaftslehre. Freiburg; Munchen: Alber.Google Scholar
Verweyen, Hansjürgen. 1995. “Fichtes Religionsphilosophie: Versuch eines Gesamtüberblick.” Fichte-Studien 8: 193–224.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. Jay. 2006. Normativity and the Will: Selected Essays on Moral Psychology and Practical Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ware, Owen. 2015. “Agency and Evil in Fichte’s Ethics.” Philosophers’ Imprint 15 (11): 1–21.Google Scholar
Ware, Owen. 2017. “Fichte on Conscience.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95 (2): 376–394.Google Scholar
Ware, Owen. 2018. “Fichte’s Normative Ethics: Deontological or Teleological?” Mind 127 (506): 565–584.Google Scholar
Ware, Owen. 2019. “Fichte’s Method of Moral Justification.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 27 (6): 1173–1193.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 2002. Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 2000. “The ‘I’ as Principle of Practical Philosophy.” In The Reception of Kant’s Critical Philosophy, edited by Sedgwick, Sally, 93–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 2014. “Leaving Consequentialism Behind.” In The Free Development of Each: Studies on Freedom, Right, and Ethics in Classical German Philosophy, 144–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 2016a. Fichte’s Ethical Thought. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen. 2016b. “Fichte’s Philosophy of Right and Ethics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Fichte, edited by James, David and Zöller, Günter, 168–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 2017a. “Fichte.” In The Cambridge History of Moral Philosophy, edited by Golob, Sacha and Timmermann, Jens, 410–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zöller, Günter. 1998. Fichte’s Transcendental Philosophy: The Original Duplicity of Intelligence and Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zöller, Gunter. 2003. “Das Absolute und seine Erscheinung: Die Schelling-Rezeption des späten Fichte.” Internationales Jahrbuch des deutschen Idealismus 1: 165–182.Google Scholar
Zöller, Günter. 2008. “Two Hundred Years of Solitude: The Failed Reception of Fichte’s System of Ethics.” Philosophy Today 52: 218–227.Google Scholar
Zoller, Gunter. 2015. “Die Rezeption und Wirkungsgeschichte von Fichtes System der Sittenlehre.” In Fichtes System der Sittenlehre: Ein kooperativer Kommentar, edited by Merle, Jean-Christophe and Schmidt, Andreas, 247–266. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar