Contrary to much Kant interpretation, this article argues that Kant's moral philosophy, including his account of charity, is irrelevant to justifying the state's right to redistribute material resources to secure the rights of dependents (the poor, children, and the impaired). The article also rejects the popular view that Kant either does not or cannot justify anything remotely similar to the liberal welfare state. A closer look at Kant's account of dependency relations in “The Doctrine of Right” reveals an argumentative structure (...) sufficient for a public institutional protection of dependents and evidence that Kant identifies concerns of economic justice as lying at the heart of the state's legitimacy. (shrink)

Contrary to the received view, I argue that Kant, in the “Doctrine of Right”, outlines a third, republican alternative to absolutist and voluntarist conceptions of political legitimacy. According to this republican alternative, a state must meet certain institutional requirements before political obligations arise. An important result of this interpretation is not only that there are institutional restraints on a legitimate state's use of coercion, but also that the rights of the state (‘public right’) are not in principle reducible to the (...) rights of individuals (‘private right’). Thus, for Kant, political obligations are intimately linked to the existence of a certain kind of republican institutional framework. (shrink)

This paper aims at shedding light on an obscure point in Kant's theory of the state. It discusses whether Kant's rational theory of the state recognises the fact that certain exceptional social situations, such as the extreme poverty of some parts of the population, could request institutional state support in order to guarantee the attainment of a minimum threshold of civil independence. It has three aims: 1) to show that Kant's Doctrine of Right can offer solutions for the complex relation (...) between economics and politics in our present time; 2) to demonstrate the claim that Kant embraces a pragmatic standpoint when he tackles the social concerns of the state, and so to refute the idea that he argues for an abstract conception of politics; and 3) to suggest that a non-paternalistic theory of rights is not necessarily incompatible with the basic tenets of a welfare state. O presente artigo tenciona contribuir a esclarecer uma questão, tão complicada quanto polêmica, no âmbito da teoria kantiana do Estado de direito. Pretendo submeter à discussão se a teoria racional de Kant sobre o Estado legal sustenta ou rejeita o fato de que certas situações sociais excepcionais, como a extrema pobreza de uma parte da população, requerem o apoio institucional do Estado para garantir a consecução de um limiar mínimo de independência civil. Proponho-me os três seguintes objetivos: 1) argumentar a capacidade da doutrina kantiana do direito para propor soluções para a difícil relação entre economia e política, no tempo presente; 2) mostrar que o ponto de vista pragmático que Kant adota quando analisa as preocupações sociais do Estado recusa a ideia segundo a qual Kant sustenta uma concepção abstrata da política e 3) sugerir a tese de uma teoria não paternalista do Estado de direito sem ter que renunciar necessariamente aos princípios básicos do welfare state. (shrink)

In this masterful work, both an illumination of Kant's thought and an important contribution to contemporary legal and political theory, Arthur Ripstein gives a comprehensive yet accessible account of Kant's political philosophy. In addition to providing a clear and coherent statement of the most misunderstood of Kant's ideas, Ripstein also shows that Kant's views remain conceptually powerful and morally appealing today.

The general aim of this paper is to elucidate Kant's juridical understanding of the duty not to lie and to situate it within his account of ‘The right of a state’ and of ‘The right of nations’. The first section will introduce the distinction Kant draws between two senses in which a liar can be said to wrong another, namely, ‘materially’ and ‘formally’. The second section will be devoted to clarifying what Kant means by a ‘formal wrong’ (or a ‘wrong (...) in general’), by focusing on his use of this concept in the context of international relations. The third section will examine why a liar can be said to always do wrong ‘formally’. And the fourth section will show that what holds for individuals also holds for states in their mutual relationships: they are never to deceive one another, not even when innocent lives are at stake, because doing so would ‘subvert the right of human beings as such.'. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 62.3 (2001) 381-399 [Access article in PDF] Permissive Natural Law and Property: Gratian to Kant Brian Tierney In his Doctrine of Right Kant set out to formulate a theory of property that would be based on purely rational argumentation, that would abstract "from all spatial and temporal conditions," and that would be applicable to any person, "merely because and insofar as he is (...) free and has practical reason." But from the time when the work first appeared Kant scholars have found many difficulties in the teaching that he presented. Many of them relate to the idea of permissive natural law that Kant introduced at a key point to his argument.In a previous, complementary article I discussed in detail various apparent aporias that arose in Kant's treatment of this concept and suggested that we might understand his problems better by setting them in a broader historical context than those considered in standard works like those of Reinhard Brandt and Wolfgang Kersting. 1 This is the theme that I want to explore further in the present paper.To sum up briefly some of the difficulties in the Doctrine of Right: A central problem for Kant was to explain how rightful possession of individual property could emerge from a hypothetical state of nature where everything was common to all, where everyone had a right to everything. His argument was grounded on a concept of freedom understood as "a pure rational concept." Kant maintained that every person had an innate right to freedom and from this he deduced a universal law of Right: "[S]o act externally that the free use of your choice can coexist with the freedom of everyone." 2 But the person who first seized for himself what had been common to all evidently did encroach on the freedom of others (their freedom to use the property that had been taken). [End Page 381]To address this problem Kant formulated a "postulate of practical reason" concerning property. Citing the Roman law doctrine of res nullius he argued that external things could in principle be acquired. 3 Then he restated the postulate as a permissive law that obliged others to respect the claim of a first occupant. "This postulate can be called a permissive law (lex permissiva) of practical reason which gives us an authorization... to put all others under an obligation, which they would not otherwise have...." 4 But to put others under an obligation is to encroach on their freedom, which would be a violation of the universal law of Right. For Kant, laws that could be discerned by reason alone without promulgation by a legislator, were understood to be natural laws. 5 The universal law of Right and the permissive law of practical reason were both laws of this kind. It seems therefore that natural law contradicted itself. It prohibited and permitted an action at the same time.Other difficulties arose as the argument proceeded. Kant repeatedly asserted that rightful possession must depend on consent expressed in "a collective general (common) and powerful will," "a will that is united originally and a priori"; 6 but he acknowledged that such a general will would not exist in a state of nature before the institution of civil society and that an act of original acquisition would necessarily proceed from a unilateral will. "But the will that a thing is to be mine... can be only unilateral." 7 And yet Kant also wrote, "By my unilateral choice I cannot bind another to refrain from using a thing, an obligation he would not otherwise have." 8 Kant never did explain how a permissive law, allowing a person to act unilaterally, could impose an obligation on others.In my earlier discussion of Kant's work I indicated that it might be fruitful to approach these difficulties by investigating some previous ways of using the language of permissive natural law, especially as it related to the origin of property rights. There is indeed a whole earlier tradition of thought to be considered. An investigation of this material... (shrink)

Cinco generaciones de utilitaristas, apoyados en la ciencia social posterior a la revolución marginalista neoclásica, destruyeron la conexión clásica entre la reflexión filosófica normativa y el mundo de los derechos y de las instituciones sociales. El estilo de hacer filosofía política inaugurado por Rawls no sólo prometía romper a su vez con todo eso, sino que, aparentemente, apuntaba a una consciente reanudación de la manera clásica -preutilitarista, preneoclásica- de hacer filosofía política: derechos, virtudes, contratos, clases sociales y entramados institucionales -no (...) sólo utilidades maximizadas por individuos atomísticamente y a -institucionalmente concebidos- volvían al núcleo de una filosofía política que se presentaba como «neocontractualista». En este artículo se argumenta que algunas de las opciones metodológicas asociadas al legado de Rawls explican el que la promesa fuera sólo muy parcialmente cumplida. A partir de la crisis del «rawlsismo metodológico» que se ha hecho patente en los últimos años, los autores, republicanos avant la mode, tratan de explicar el espectacular auge experimentado recientemente -a favor y en contra- por la vieja tradición republicana. (shrink)

Published in 1797, the Doctrine of Right is Kant's most significant contribution to legal and political philosophy. As the first part of the Metaphysics of Morals, it deals with the legal rights which persons have or can acquire, and aims at providing the grounding for lasting international peace through the idea of the juridical state. This commentary analyzes Kant's system of individual rights, starting from the original innate right to external freedom, and ending with the right to own property and (...) to have contractual and family claims. Clear and to the point, it guides readers through the most difficult passages of the Doctrine, explaining Kant's terminology, method and ideas in the light of his intellectual environment. One of the very few commentaries on the Doctrine of Right available in English, this book will be essential for anyone with a strong interest in Kant's moral and political philosophy. (shrink)

Characterizations of Kant's legal and political philosophy with regard to its affinity toward basic socio-political positions generally range between the two extremes of a social welfare state, on the one hand, and a libertarian laissez-faire state, on the other. The purpose of this article is to provide a three-tiered analysis showing that the issue of "social justice" is not raised at all within the narrower framework of Kant's legal philosophy, that instead Kant's legal philosophy is mainly neutral in the socio-political (...) sense and that Kant makes a move toward imposing an obligation on the state to attain social equality only as an issue of ethics sensu stricto. Kant's indifference toward matters of social justice are considered in relation to his concept of human nature. Finally, the author discusses the need for adopting a theory of social justice, if necessary independently from Kantian premises. Die Einordnung der Kantischen Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie hinsichtlich ihrer Affinität zu sozialphilosophischen Grundpositionen schwankt gemeinhin zwischen der Zuordnung zu den extremen Positionen des Wohlfahrtsstaats einerseits und des liberalen Nachtwächterstaates andererseits. In einer dreistufigen Analyse wird herausgarbeitet, daß sich die Frage 'sozialer Gerechtigkeit' im engeren Rahmen der Kantischen Rechts-Philosophie gar nicht stellt, daß letztere vielmehr sozialpolitisch weitestgehend neutral ist und daß sich bei Kant überhaupt nur in der Ethik sensu stricto Ansätze einer staatlichen Verpflichtung zum sozialen Ausgleich zeigen. Die Kantische Indifferenz gegenüber Fragen sozialer Gerechtigkeit wird in Bezug gesetzt zu Kants Auffassung von der menschlichen Natur; und es wird zuletzt verwiesen auf die Notwendigkeit, eine Theorie sozialer Gerechtigkeit ggf. unabhängig von Kantischen Vorgaben zu entwickeln. (shrink)