David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Southern Journal of Philosophy 36 (S1):161-187 (1998)
In contrast to his own "freestanding" liberalism, Rawls has characterized the liberalism of Kant's Rechtslehre as comprehensive, i.e., as dependent on Kant's teachings about good will and ethical autonomy or on his transcendental idealism. This characterization is not borne out by the text. Though Kant is indeed eager to show that his liberalism is entailed by his wider philosophical worldview, he is not committed to the converse, does not hold that his liberalism presupposes either his moral philosophy or his transcendental idealism. Rather, Kant bases the establishment and maintenance of Recht solely on persons' fundamental a priori interest in external freedom. His liberalism is then, if anything, more freestanding than Rawls's, central elements of which-such as his postulate of certain moral powers with corresponding higher-order interests-are justified by appeal to fundamental ideas he finds to be prevalent in the public culture of his society.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Thomas Pogge (2012). Is Kant's Rechtslehre a "Comprehensive Liberalism"? In Elisabeth Ellis (ed.), Kant's Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Aaron Szymkowiak (2009). Of Free Federations and World States. International Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2):185-206.
Theobald Ziegler (1909). Zu Kants Rechtslehre. Kant-Studien 14 (1-3):491-494.
Katrin Flikschuh (1997). On Kant's Rechtslehre. European Journal of Philosophy 5 (1):50–73.
Mary Gregor (1994). Review: Mulholland, On Kant's Rechtslehre (System of Rights). [REVIEW] Dialogue 33 (04):693-.
Kevin E. Dodson (1997). Autonomy and Authority in Kant's Rechtslehre. Political Theory 25 (1):93-111.
Thomas E. Hill Jr, & Arnulf Zweig (eds.) (2003). Immanuel Kant: Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Oup Oxford.
Jennifer K. Uleman (2004). External Freedom in Kant's Rechtslehre: Political, Metaphysical. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (3):578–601.
Radu Neculau (2008). Does Kant's Rejection of the Right to Resist Make Him a Legal Rigorist? Instantiation and Interpretation in the Rechtslehre. Kantian Review 13 (2):107-140.
Immanuel Kant (1785/2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Oxford University Press.
Iain Morrisson (2006). Pleasure in Kant. Journal of Philosophical Research 31:219-232.
Kenneth R. Westphal (forthcoming). ‘Constructivism, Contractarianism and Basic Obligations: Kant and Gauthier’. In J.-C. Merle (ed.), Reading Kant’s Doctrine of Right.
Beryl Logan (ed.) (1996). Immanuel Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics: In Focus. Routledge.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2005). ‘Kant, Hegel, and Determining Our Duties’. Jahrbuch für Recht and Ethik/Annual Review of Law & Ethics 13:335-354.
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads42 ( #49,696 of 1,692,986 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #59,677 of 1,692,986 )
How can I increase my downloads?