The Problem of Imputability in the Kantian Aftermath

This paper analyses a dispute that flared up in the 1790s, about whether Kant's moral theory leaves room for the possibility of imputable wrongdoing. Contra Paul Guyer's reading, I argue this was not merely a matter of mutual misunderstanding but reflected its participants’ varying perceptions of an arguably genuine dilemma for Kantian ethics: that what he needs to say to explain how imputable action contrary to duty is possible within his framework is prima facie incompatible with what he needs to say to establish that the moral law is categorically binding. In addition to presenting my interpretation of the controversy, I offer a suggestion as to how Kant might be able to escape the dilemma, and further suggest we have good reason to think that Kant himself was both aware of the danger and endorsed the proffered solution.