A Kantian Justification of Possession
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In M. Timmons (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Ethics: Interpretive Essays. Oxford (2002)
Kant’s justification of possession appears to assume rather than prove its legitimacy. This apparent question-begging has been recapitulated or exacerbated but not resolved in the literature. However, Kant provides a sound justification of limited rights to possess and use things (qualified choses in possession), not of private property rights. Kant’s argument is not purely a priori; it is in Kant’s Critical sense ‘metaphysical’ because it applies the pure a priori ‘Universal Principles of Right’ to the concept of finite rational human agency. This use implicitly involves a ‘Contradiction in Conception’ test, which I explicate in detail. The limited rights to possession and use justified by Kant’s argument suffice for his social contract argument for the legitimacy of the state.
|Keywords||usufruct use rights property Critical metaphysics|
|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
Kenneth R. Westphal (2009). Mutual Recognition and Rational Justification in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Dialogue 48 (4):753-99.
Angela Breitenbach (2005). Kant Goes Fishing: Kant and the Right to Property in Environmental Resources. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 36 (3):488-512.
Angela Breitenbach (2005). Kant Goes Fishing: Kant and the Right to Property in Environmental Resources. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (3):488-512.
Similar books and articles
Kenneth R. Westphal (1997). Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct? Jahrbuch für Recht Und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5:141-194.
Peter Vallentyne (2001). Self-Ownership. In Laurence Becker & Charlotte Becker (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics, 2nd edition. Garland Publishing
Doris Schroeder (2012). Human Rights and Human Dignity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (3):323-335.
Larry May (1986). Corporate Property Rights. Journal of Business Ethics 5 (3):225 - 232.
Louis-Philippe Hodgson (2010). Kant on Property Rights and the State. Kantian Review 15 (1):57-87.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2005). Kant, Hegel, and Determining Our Duties. Jahrbuch für Recht and Ethik/Annual Review of Law & Ethics 13:335-354.
Karl Widerquist (2009). A Dilemma for Libertarianism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (1):43-72.
L. Wenar (1998). Original Acquisition of Private Property. Mind 107 (428):799-820.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2011). Kant’s [Moral] Constructivism and Rational Justification. In Pihlström & Williams Baiasu (ed.), Politics and Metaphysics in Kant. Wales University Press
Jay E. Kantor (1980). The “Interests” of Natural Objects. Environmental Ethics 2 (2):163-171.
Jeremy Shearmur (1990). From Dialogue Rights to Property Rights: Foundations for Hayek's Legal Theory. Critical Review 4 (1-2):106-132.
J. M. Elegido (1995). Intrinsic Limitations of Property Rights. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (5):411 - 416.
Tom Regan (1979). An Examination and Defense of One Argument Concerning Animal Rights. Inquiry 22 (1-4):189 – 219.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-03-25
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?