Rawls says that public reason is the reason of the citizens of a democratic state and takes the Supreme Court in the USA as the exemplar of public reason. It differs from non public reason, which is used e.g., in universities and academic institutions. Rawls contrasts with Kant, which opposes the public reason of the scholar—or the philosopher—, who speaks before the world, to the private reason of state or church officials. The later, once they accept an authority, cannot think (...) by themselves (selbst denken). A closer examination shows that Rawls is not so far from Kant as it seems, because he takes the constitutional judges not as they are, but as they should be. However Rawls still apparently refuses Kant’s unity of reason. Further investigation of the relations between ethical reason, democratic reason and legal reason is needed. Democratic reason is tantamount both to public reason and to legal reason in a modern constitutional state. It is a requirement of ethics but still not identical with ethical reason, since it is possible to accept democratic reason and to argue against it from an ethical point of view. There is just one good way of reasoning, in spite of the constraints that the sources of law and the rules of procedure impose on legal reasoning, compared with ethics. Such constraints are based on the democratic principle, which is again based on ethical reason, which at last both grounds and limits the constraints that law imposes on reason. (shrink)

I argue that although in the Foundations of Natural Right Fichte adopts a theory of cosmopolitan right that is in a number of important respects formally identical to the one developed by Kant, he later came in The Closed Commercial State to reassess his earlier Kantian cosmopolitanism. This work can in fact be seen to identify a problem with Kant's cosmopolitanism, namely, Kant's failure to recognize the possibility of an indirect form of coercion based on unequal relations of economic dependence. (...) I argue that Kant's failure to acknowledge such a possibility stems from his uncritical acceptance of this type of relation. Whereas Fichte's awareness of the possibility of one-sided forms of economic dependence leads him to offer a solution to the problems it raises: the severing of all commercial relations with other states. This solution is itself highly problematic, however, as I indicate with reference to Fichte's remarks on ‘natural frontiers’. (shrink)