Shame and Punishment in Kant's Doctrine of Right

Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):299–317 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the Doctrine of Right, Kant claims that killings motivated by the fear of disgrace should be punished less severely than other murders. I consider how Kant understands the mitigating force of such motives, and argue that Kant takes agents to have a moral right to defend their honour. Unlike other rights, however, this right of honour can only be defended personally, so that individuals remain in a 'state of nature' with regard to any such rights, regardless of their political situation. According to Kant, we should be lenient in these cases because the malefactors are caught between two kinds of authentic normative demand, at a point where the proper authority of the state collides with a certain authority which individuals must claim for themselves.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,047

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
147 (#152,673)

6 months
14 (#214,836)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David Sussman
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Citations of this work

Belief-Forming Processes, Extended.Spyridon Orestis Palermos - 2011 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (4):741-765.
The Quandary of Infanticide in Kant’s ‘Doctrine of Right’.Jens Timmermann - 2024 - Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 106 (2):267-294.
Shame and Contempt in Kant's Moral Theory.Krista K. Thomason - 2013 - Kantian Review 18 (2):221-240.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references