David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (1):49 – 70 (2009)
Recently, there has been some discussion about the relationship between Kant's conception of right (the sphere of juridical rights and duties) and his moral theory (with the Categorical Imperative as its fundamental norm). In section 1, I briefly survey some recent contributions to this debate and distinguish between two different questions. First, does Kant's moral theory (as developed in the Groundwork and the Critique of Practical Reason ) imply , or validate, a Kantian conception of right (as developed in the first part of the Metaphysics of Morals , the Doctrine of Right)? In other words, is the Categorical Imperative sufficient to show that the fundamental principles of right are normatively valid? Second, does Kant's conception of right presuppose his moral theory? In other words, is the Categorical Imperative necessary to show that the basic principles of right are normatively valid? In this paper, I will be primarily concerned with defending a negative answer to the first of these questions. In section 2, I will discuss Paul Guyer's attempt to vindicate a positive answer to the same question. In section 3, reasons will be given why any attempt to derive Kant's conception of right from the Categorical Imperative must fail because of the analytic connection between right and coercion.
|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
Arthur Ripstein (2004). Authority and Coercion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (1):2–35.
Paul Guyer (2002). Kant's Deductions of the Principles of Right. In Mark Timmons (ed.), Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays. Clarendon Press
Marcus Willaschek (2002). Which Imperatives for Right? On the Non-Prescriptive Character of Juridicial Laws in Kant's Metaphysics of Morals. In Mark Timmons (ed.), Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays. Clarendon Press
Marcus Willaschek (1997). Why The Doctrine Of Right Does Not Belong In The Metaphysics Of Morals. Jahrbuch für Recht Und Ethik 5.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert Audi (2001). A Kantian Intuitionism. Mind 110 (439):601-635.
Stephen Engstrom (1993). Allison on Rational Agency. Inquiry 36 (4):405 – 418.
Lee Anne Peck (2007). Sapere Aude! The Importance of a Moral Education in Kant's Doctrine of Virtue. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22 (2 & 3):208 – 214.
Marcus Arvan (2012). Unifying the Categorical Imperative. Southwest Philosophy Review 28 (1):217-225.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2010). Practical Reason: Categorical Imperative, Maxims, Laws. In W. Dudley & K. Engelhard (eds.), Kant: Key Concepts. Acumen
Xiaomei Yang (2006). Categorical Imperatives, Moral Requirements, and Moral Motivation. Metaphilosophy 37 (1):112–129.
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.
Jens Timmermann (2009). Acting From Duty: Inclination, Reason and Moral Worth. In Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press
James Scott Johnston (2006). The Education of the Categorical Imperative. Studies in Philosophy and Education 25 (5-6):385-402.
Oliver Sensen (2011). Kant's Conception of Inner Value. European Journal of Philosophy 19 (2):262-280.
Added to index2009-03-08
Total downloads101 ( #30,762 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?