Kantian constructivism (KC) highlights the sociopolitical dimension of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy. While there is extensive literature on KC, its educational implications remain understudied. In this paper, I posit the cultivation of responsible reciprocity (RR) among teachers and students in classrooms as the foremost educational implication of KC. By focusing on Kant’s On Education (2003) and Critique of the Power of Judgment (2000), and Christine Korsgaard’s Creating the Kingdom of Ends (1996), I clarify why the cultivation of RR is the foremost educational implication of KC and how RR can be manifest in classrooms. I underpin the sociopolitical dimension of Kant’s idea of Kingdom of Ends in the context of education by highlighting Korsgaard’s notion of RR vis-à-vis Kant’s three rules for thinking: think for oneself, think in the place of every other, and think universally. I argue that education institutions must recognize that people can think for themselves and with each other and that such institutions must provide spaces where people can realize their capacity for thinking. I conclude that settings as small – but as fundamental – as classrooms must empower teachers and students not only to think for oneself but also to think with each other, and ultimately, cultivate RR.
Tuesday July 7, 2026 11:00am - 11:55am AEST GCI-273 HYBRID
Many of us – ordinary people and moral philosophers alike – sound very much like rule-consequentialists. We are willing to revise and refine the rules that we endorse, the institutions that we embrace, the virtues that we espouse, and vices that we deplore; moreover, we believe – quite rightly – in doing so in light of the consequences that such things produce. But of course if we think that consequences are so important, shouldn’t we simply be an act-consequentialists instead? In this paper I will be pointing out the curious sense in which act-consequentialists are deeply untrustworthy; recognising the practical wisdom imbedded in various established rules, practices, institutions, virtues and attitudes; and generally trying to show how to avoid sliding down the notorious slippery slope that can lead to a collapse into act-consequentialism. While it can be tempting to think that moral philosophy is largely concerned with devising an ideal procedure for decision-making, my suggestion is that it should also be focussed – perhaps amongst other things – on articulating a shareable ethos, on the cultivation of certain feelings and emotions, on the development of virtuous and flourishing human beings, and on defending – via consequentialist reasons – the prioritisation of various agent-relative obligations over impartial obligations.
Tuesday July 7, 2026 12:00pm - 12:55pm AEST GCI-273 HYBRID
Jaron Lanier’s Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now (2018) describes a conceptualisation of social media as clearly morally objectionable. Lanier’s call is ultimately to delete social media accounts or abstain from participation. Participation perpetuates its dangers, but to what extent are individual users morally responsible for their social media accounts? This paper explores that question through a three-fold theory of responsibility. The first two aspects of this theory apply Robin Zheng’s framework of accountability and attributability (2016) to the problem of social media as proposed by Lanier. Then the third aspect looks at the element of necessity and how it hinders the practise of moral responsibility when it comes to the use of and participation in social media. Although social media evidently has moral harms, not everyone has the capability to refrain from using it without significantly impairing other aspects of their life. In order to promote an effective change to social media and the Internet, the disparity between the levels of responsibility amongst individuals must be taken into account.
Wednesday July 8, 2026 4:30pm - 5:25pm AEST GCI-275 HYBRID
