ABSTRACT
I have argued, contra Alan Donagan, that properly understood the Jägerstätter case exemplifies something like Hegelian Sittlichkeit better than it does Kantian Moralität. In her reply, Heather Roff counters that a full understanding of Donagan’s version of Kantian ethics shows that the case in fact supports Moralität – just as Donagan thought it did. She also argues that Jägerstätter’s decision to refuse Wehrmacht service was clearly justified under just war theory and that any conflict with his apparently competing ethical obligations is illusory. She concludes by reaffirming (as Donagan did) that Sittlichkeit can indeed permit morally pernicious actions masquerading as morally laudable ones and therefore cannot provide a reliable basis for moral criticism.
