Recently, there has been some discussion about the relationship between Kant's conception of right (the sphere of juridical rights and duties) and his moral theory (with the Categorical Imperative as its fundamental norm). In section 1, I briefly survey some recent contributions to this debate and distinguish between two different questions. First, does Kant's moral theory (as developed in the Groundwork and the Critique of Practical Reason ) imply , or validate, a Kantian conception of right (as developed in the (...) first part of the Metaphysics of Morals , the Doctrine of Right)? In other words, is the Categorical Imperative sufficient to show that the fundamental principles of right are normatively valid? Second, does Kant's conception of right presuppose his moral theory? In other words, is the Categorical Imperative necessary to show that the basic principles of right are normatively valid? In this paper, I will be primarily concerned with defending a negative answer to the first of these questions. In section 2, I will discuss Paul Guyer's attempt to vindicate a positive answer to the same question. In section 3, reasons will be given why any attempt to derive Kant's conception of right from the Categorical Imperative must fail because of the analytic connection between right and coercion. (shrink)

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Immorality thus involves a violation of the CI and is thereby irrational. Other philosophers, such as Locke and Hobbes, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these standards were either desirebased instrumental principles of rationality or based on sui generis rational intuitions. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason (...) will reveal only the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Yet he argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle) and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than the law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant's moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect. (shrink)

Contemporary ‘realists’ attack the Kantian influence on political philosophy. A main charge is that Kantians fail to understand the specificity of politics and neglect to develop a ‘distinctively political thought’ that differs from moral philosophy. Instead, the critics say, Kantians are guilty of an ‘ethics-first approach to politics,’ in which political theory is a mere application of moral principles. But what does this ethics-first approach have to do with Kant himself? Very little. This article shows how Kant’s approach to political (...) theory at a fundamental level includes political institutions, power, and coercion as well as disagreement, security, and coordination problems. In contrast to realists, Kant has a fundamental principle, which can explain why and guide how we ought to approach the political question, namely the norm of equal freedom. Yet, Kant’s theory does not take the form of a moralistic ought addressed to the isolated individual, but concerns a problem that we share as interdependent beings and that requires common institutions. The fruitfulness of the Kantian approach, then, is that it can take the political question seriously without being uncritical of actual politics and power, and that it can be normative without being moralistic. (shrink)

En este artículo realizo una comparación de las teorías del castigo legal en la filosofía del derecho de Kant y de Hegel. La tesis que busco defender es que, al menos en lo que concierne a este tópico, las posiciones de Kant y de Hegel no deberían leerse en franca oposición, sino como pertenecientes a una familia común de teorías penales retributivistas. El análisis comparativo que presento busca arrojar luz sobre ciertos aspectos estructurales de su filosofía del derecho como un (...) todo y sobre algunas estrategias habituales en ellos en su procedimiento de justificación jurídico-filosófica. La discusión que aquí se presenta mostrará, no obstante, algunas limitaciones de ambas teorías y esbozará a grandes rasgos, a modo de solución a dichas dificultades, una lectura en la cual las concepciones filosóficas de Kant y de Hegel en torno al castigo legal son más bien consideradas como complementarias. (shrink)

Immanuel Kant is recognized as one of the first philosophers who wrote systematically about global justice and world peace. In the current debate on global justice he is mostly appealed to by critics of extensive duties of global justice. However, I show in this paper that an analysis of Kant’s late work on rights and justice provides ample resources for disagreeing with those who take Kant to call for only modest changes in global politics. Kant’s comments in the Doctrine of (...) Right clarify that he thinks we need a coercively enforced global civil condition. But his work also contains ideas that imply that within such a global legal order there must be no extreme forms of poverty and inequality, and that the current holdings of states are by no means conclusive possessions without confirmation by the global legal order we have a duty to establish. Thus, this paper challenges the prevailing interpretation of Kant as a conservative thinker about global justice that is held, for instance, by the leading contemporary liberal thinkers such as John Rawls, Thomas Nagel, and Ronald Dworkin. (shrink)

Since more than 50 years Kant scholars debate the question whether the Law of Right as introduced in the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant can be justified by the Categorical Imperative. On the one hand we have those who think that Kant's theory of right depends from the Categorical Imperative, on the other hand we find a growing group of scholars who deny this. However, the debate has been flawed by confusion and misunderstanding of the crucial terms and principles. Therefore, (...) my first task will be to clarify these terms and principles by introducing distinctions that have been neglected too often. After this I try to show a) that the Law of Right can in fact be justified by using the testing method the Categorical Imperative prescribes and b) that there is no other way to justify it. Doing this I criticize in detail the new arguments adherents of the independence thesis have recently put forward. (shrink)

Immanuel Kant’s major book on his legal and political philosophy, the Doctrine of Right, appears in 1797. Therefore, many scholars have argued that Kant’s entire legal philosophy has only been developed in the late 1790s and that it is for the most part independent from his critical writings on moral philosophy dating in the 1780s. This article, however, tries to proof the contrary by analyzing the1784 lecture notes Moral-Mrongovius II given by Christoph Coelestin Mrongovius, who attended Kant’s lecture on moral (...) philosophy at that time. Those lecture notes not only proof that Kant’s concept of right has already been worked out in 1784. Even more: Moral-Mrongovius II indicates that Kant considered his legal philosophy as an integral part of his overall critical moral philosophy. (shrink)

This article explores the bases of Kant’s cosmopolitanism in his more systematic writings on freedom, judgment, and community. My argument is that, if we peer beneath his more explicitly normative prescriptions for achieving “perpetual peace,” we find the tools not just of a cosmopolitan vision but what we might call a “cosmopolitical method.” While many assume Kant’s political thought descends directly from his moral philosophy, a look back at relevant passages in the first Critique reveals an alternative reading that points (...) toward his theory of reflective judgment, which combines practical freedom with judgments based on theoretical concepts. Of particular importance is Kant’s conception of community as commercium, through which Kant discerns all matters of right to concern the way free actors are constrained to share the earth in common. These considerations allow for a broader way of thinking about Kantian cosmopolitanism, one that is responsive to the reflective judgment of world citizens as they encounter new challenges. (shrink)

Este artigo concerne três questões: a concepção kantiana da política, a sua relação com a doutrina do direito e o papel da Urteilskraft na esfera da política. No § 1 sublinha-se que a perspectiva kantiana é caracterizada por uma flexibilidade contextual que permite de realizar o modelo normativo da Rechtslehre em diversas circunstâncias culturais: à política diz respeito, de fato, o como ‘traduzir’ as prescrições do direito em princípios contextuais que se adaptem corretamente a uma determinada comunidade humana. No § (...) 2 analisa- se o papel da capacidade de juízo enquanto instrumento capaz de compreender as especificidades do contexto no qual se realizam as reformas políticas solicitadas pela razão pratica; a propósito será evidenciado que através da reflektierende Urteilskraft é possível construir regras que refletem as peculiaridades do contexto ao qual são aplicadas as normas a priori do direito. (shrink)