Explaining and justifying actions

On a supposed "antinomy of acting"

Abstract

I will explore in this paper an aspect neglected in Kantian discussions regarding human action, namely, the distinction between “determinant cause” and “determinant reason”. Based on this distinction, I will try to make a “rationalization of action”, showing that causes only help us to understand and explain the action, however, they do not justify it. In the same way that practical grounds which justify the plausibility of an act do not serve to explain it. Although this specific distinction, both aspects are complementary because we can only infer “determinant reason” of an action from its “determinant causes”. In general, this opposition is in harmony with the Kantian conception of the two points of views/perspectives.