A comparative analysis of Kant and Deleuze: Towards an ethics of immanence

Though he was very critical of Kantian morality, it was Deleuze's point of view that an ethics of immanence could be argued for consistently, and thus, he certainly believed that moral theories that rely on a transcendental development of "good" and "evil," could be replaced with an immanent ethical distinction of "good" and "bad." In agreement with Deleuze, I argue that his immanent ethics offers a consistent philosophical framework, by which we can still make ethical evaluations without reliance on absolute or transcendent moral distinctions. In order to understand the concepts that Deleuze uses to articulate his immanent ethics, it is important to understand the Kantian framework to which he is replying. Along with Deleuze, I use, as a critique of Kant, Hegel's discussion of the Kantian morality. I argue that Deleuze, though vigorously opposed to Hegel on most philosophical points, shares with Hegel, a thin line of development, in the sense that both authors argue that morality requires a more concrete development than Kant offers.