‘Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?’
Jahrbuch für Recht Und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5:141-194 (1997)
|Abstract||Kant’s justification of possession appears to beg the question (petitio principii) by assuming rather than proving the legitimacy of possession. The apparent question-begging in Kant’s argument has been recapitulated or exacerbated but not resolved in the secondary literature. A detailed terminological, textual, and logical analysis of Kant’s argument reveals that he 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. The application of this principle implicitly involves a ‘Contradiction in Conception’ test. I explicate this test in detail and show, inter alia, how Kant’s argument relates to the modern natural law tradition. I further argue that Kant’s ‘Universal Principle of Right’ is justified by appeal to a fundamental principle of justification, the Principle of Mutual Acceptability. This justification also suggests that the debate between Kantians and Utilitarians about whether human ‘dignity’ is an incommensurable value is moot because Kant’s test of the Categorical Imperative need not appeal to ‘dignity’. Finally, I show that 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 property rights Contradiction in Conception test|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kenneth R. Westphal (2002). ‘A Kantian Justification of Possession’. In M. Timmons (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Ethics: Interpretive Essays. Oxford.
Doris Schroeder (forthcoming). Human Rights and Human Dignity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.
Burleigh T. Wilkins (2007). Kant on International Relations. Journal of Ethics 11 (2):147 - 159.
Michael E. Cuffaro (2012). Kant and Frege on Existence and the Ontological Argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly 29 (4):337-354.
Louis-Philippe Hodgson (2010). Kant on Property Rights and the State. Kantian Review 15 (1):57-87.
Gerhard Seel (2009). How Does Kant Justify the Universal Objective Validity of the Law of Right? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (1):71 – 94.
Melissa McBay Merritt (2011). Kant's Argument for the Apperception Principle. European Journal of Philosophy 19 (1):59-84.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2005). ‘Kant, Hegel, and Determining Our Duties’. Jahrbuch für Recht and Ethik/Annual Review of Law & Ethics 13:335-354.
J. M. Elegido (1995). Intrinsic Limitations of Property Rights. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (5):411 - 416.
Larry May (1986). Corporate Property Rights. Journal of Business Ethics 5 (3):225 - 232.
Pauline Kleingeld (1998). Kant's Cosmopolitan Law: World Citizenship for a Global Order. Kantian Review 2:72-90.
Karl Widerquist (2009). A Dilemma for Libertarianism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (1):43-72.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-03-11
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?