The reflection of human mind

1. Authority of Reflection 1
Authority of Reflection
Student Number

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.