Abstract

This thesis offers a novel reading of Kant’s Doctrine of Right. It argues that The Doctrine of Right is plausibly read as a sustained exercise in practical political judgment. In the text, Kant reflexively formulates principles of political judgment – including the formal principle of political judgment – the idea of the general united will. According to this principle, to judge politically is to judge as a citizen. The thesis offers this interpretation in contrast to the mainstream of current scholarship on The Doctrine of Right, which is here termed ‘Kantian legalism’. This thesis argues that The Doctrine of Right is a fundamentally political text in which judgment is a key concept. Part One of this thesis begins by tracing the formulation of the idea of the general united will in the first part of The Doctrine of Right ‘Private Right’. The thesis then turns to ‘Public Right’ to argue that Kant’s account of political judgment based on the idea of the general united will stands in contrast to an ideal-theoretic account, the attribution of which to Kant Kantian legalism makes plausible. Part Two substantiates this account through three separate chapters which aim to show the consequences of this reading for interpreting public right in each of its three divisions: right of state, right of nations and cosmopolitan right. By revisiting Public Right, this thesis argues that The Doctrine of Right embraces the contingency of politics from the finite, human perspective that is characteristic of Kant’s philosophy.