The Relation between Right and Morality in Kant's Philosophy: Doctrine of Independence

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Public Law Department, Law Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

Kant’s theory of right is one of the most significant theories, which distinguishes between right and morality by giving pivotal role to the concept of freedom concerning the definition of “strict right” and removing the concepts of “perfection” and “happiness” from it. However, his emphasis on the Metaphysics of morals distinguishes his position from positivism, leading to some challenging discussions about the relation of morality and right. Accordingly, this makes the coherent interpretation of the theory impossible. Considering the concept of (moral) obligation as a core concept of Kant’s metaphysics of morals, we can categorize Kant specialists into two main groups: a) The dependentists, who believe that the strict right implies the concept of obligation and b) independentists who think otherwise. Amongst second groups, three thinkers are most famous: Ebbinghaus, one of the pioneers of the theory; Allen Wood, a radical American philosopher and Marcus Willaschek, who suggests the most sophisticated version of theory by proposing the idea of the paradox of juridical imperatives. Furthermore, Willaschek makes an attempt to analyze the concept of coercion, impossibility of derivation of coercion from categorical imperative and impossibility of conflict between Wilkür and Wille in Kant’s theory of right in order to prove his interpretation. The present essay aims to introduce the independence doctrine, especially willaschek’s interpretation, to Iranian scholars.

Keywords

References

Baiasu, Sorin (2016) “Right’s Complex Relation to Ethics in Kant: The Limits of Independentism”, in Kant-Studien, Vol. 107, No. 1, pp. 6-5.
Byrd, Sharon; Hruschka, Joachim (2010) Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guyer, Paul (2016) “The Twofold Morality of Recht: Once More unto the Breach”, in Kant-Studien, Vol. 107, pp. 34-63.
Guyer, Paul (2002) “Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right”, In Mark Timmons (ed) Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23-65.
Höffe, Otfried (1986) “Kant's Principle of Justice as Categorical Imperative of Law”, in Kant’s Practical Philosophy Reconsidered: Papers presented at the Seventh Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter, edited. by Yirmiyahu Yovel, Springer, pp. 158-159.
Korsgaard, Christine M. (1989) “Kants Analysis of Obligation: The Argument of "Foundation I”, The Monist, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 311-340.
Nance, Michael (2012) “Kantian Right and the Categorical Imperative: Response to Willaschek”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Vol. 20, Issue. 4, pp. 541-556.
Pauer-Studer, Herlinde (2016) “A Community of Rational Beings; Kant’s Realm of Ends and the Dinstinction between Internal and External Freedom”, in Kant-Studien, Vol. 107, No. 1, pp. 131-133.
Potter, Nelson Thomas Jr, (1994) “Kant on Obligation and Motivation in Law and Ethics”, in Jarbuch für Recht und Ethik, Vol. 2, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot GmbH, pp. 95-110.
Ripstein, Arthur (2009) Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy, Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Trejo-Mathys, Jonathan (2015) “Neo-Kantianism in the Philosophy of Law: its Value and Actuality”, in New Approaches to Neo-Kantianism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 147-170.
Willaschek, Marcus (1997) “Why the "Doctrine of Right" does not belong in the Metaphysics of Morals”, in Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics, vol. 5, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot GmbH, pp. 205-227.
White Beck, Lewis (1987) "Five Concepts of Freedom in Kant”, in Philosophical Analysis and Reconstruction: Contribution to Philosophy, Boston: Martinus Nijhof Publishers, pp. 35.51.
Wood, Allan (2002) “The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy“, in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, edited by M. Timmons, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 1-22.
Willaschek, Marcus (2002) “Which Imperatives for Right? On the Prescriptivity of Juridical Laws in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals“, in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals. Interpretative Essays, edited by M. Timmons, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 65–87.
Willaschek, Marcus (2012) “The Non-Derivability of Kantian Right from the Categorical Imperative: A Response to Nance”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 557-564.
Willaschek, Marcus (2009) “Right and Coercion: Can Kant’s Conception of Right be Derived from his Moral Theory?”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 49-70.
 
ج. آلمانی
Ebbinghaus, Julius (1973) „Kants Rechtslehre und die Rechtsphilosophie des Neukantianismus“, in Kant. Zur Deutung seiner Theorie von Erkennen und Handeln, hg. von Gerold Prauss, Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, pp. 322-336.
Ebbinghaus, Julius (1968) Gesammelte Aufsätze, Vorträge und Reden, Darmstadt: G. Olms.
Höffe, Otfried (2010) „Der kategorische Rechtsimperativ. Einleitung in die Rechtslehre“, in Immanuel Kant: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, hg. von Otfrid Höffe, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 41-62.
Kant, Immanuel (1784) „Naturrecht Feyerabend“, in Kant Index, Band 30: Stellenindex und Konkordanz zum "Naturrecht Feyerabend, hg. von Delfosse/Hinske/Bordoni, Stuttgart: frommann-holzboog, 2010.
Kant, Immanuel (1797) „Die Metaphysik der Sitten“, hg. von Kirchmann, Leipzig: Verlag Der Dürrschen Buchhandlung, 1870.
 Kant, Immanuel (1786) „Rezension von Gottlieb Hufeland, Versuch über den Grundsatz des Naturrechts“, Leipzig: Verlag Der Dürrschen Buchhandlung.
Willaschek, Marcus (1995) „Was ist ein praktisches Gesetz?“, in Proceedings of The VIII. International Kant Congress, edited by H. Robinson, Milwaukee, Vol. II.2, Memphis: Marquette University Press, pp. 533–540.
Willaschek, Marcus (2003) „Verhinderung eines Hindernisses der Freiheit und Zweiter Zwang: Bemerkungen zur Begründung des Zwangsrechts bei Kant und Hegel“, in Subjektivität und Anerkennung, hg. von B. Merker, G. Mohr und M. Quante, Paderborn: Mentis, pp. 271–283.
Willaschek, Marcus (2005) „Recht ohne Ethik? Kant über die Gründe, das Recht nicht zu brechen“, in Kant im Streit der Fakultäten, hg. von V. Gerhardt und Th. Meyer, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 188-204.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics