Element contents
The Moral Foundation of Right
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 December 2024
Summary
Kant defined 'Right' (Recht) as the condition that obtains among a population of physically embodied persons capable of setting their own ends who live on a finite surface and therefore cannot avoid interaction with each other if each is as free to set their own ends as is consistent with the freedom of all to do the same. He regarded this rational idea, heir to the traditional idea of 'natural Right, as the test of the legitimacy of the laws of any actual state, or 'positive Right.' He clearly considered Right to be part of morality as a whole, namely the coercively enforceable part, as contrasted to Ethics, which is the non-coercively enforceable part of morality. Some have questioned whether Right is part of morality, but this Element shows how Kant's "Universal Principle of Right" follows straightforwardly from the foundational idea of Kant's moral philosophy as a whole.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009464505Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 16 January 2025
References
Primary Sources
Kant, Immanuel, 1887. The Philosophy of Law. Translated by W. Hastie. Clifton: August M. Kelley.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 1900–. Kant’s gesammelte Schriften. Edited by the Royal Prussian, subsequently German, then Berlin-Brandenburg, Academy of Sciences. 29 vols. Berlin: Georg Reimer, subsequently Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 1986. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre: Philosophische Bibliothek 360. Edited by Ludwig, Bernd. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 1992. Theoretical Philosophy 1775–1770. Edited and translated by David Walford in collaboration with Ralf Meerbote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 1996a. Practical Philosophy. Edited and translated by Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 1996b. Religion and Rational Theology. Edited and translated by Allen W. Wood and George di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 1997. Lectures on Ethics. Edited by Heath, Peter and Schneewind, J. B., translated by Peter Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by Paul Guyer and Wood, Allen W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 1999. Metaphysical Elements of Justice. Translated by John Ladd, Second edition. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 2004. Vorlesungen zur Moralphilosophie. Edited by Stark, Werner and Kuehn, Manfred. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 2005. Notes and Fragments. Edited by Guyer, Paul, translated by Curtis Bowman, Guyer, Paul, and Rauscher, Frederick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 2007. Anthropology, History, and Education. Edited by Louden, Robert B. and Zöller, Günter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 2010–14. Kant-Index Band 30: Stellenindex und Konkordanz zum “Naturrecht Feyerabend.” Edited by Delfosse, Heinrich P., Hinske, Norbert, and Bordoni, Gianluca Sadun. 3 vols. Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 2011. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime and Other Writings. Edited by Frierson, Patrick and Guyer, Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, 2016. Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy. Edited by Rauscher, Frederick, translated by Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth R. Westphal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secondary Sources
Achenwall, Gottfried, 2020a. Natural Law. Edited by Kleingeld, Pauline, translated by Corinna Vermeulen, with an Introduction by Paul Guyer. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achenwall, Gottfried, 2020b. Prolegomena to Natural Law. Edited by Kleingeld, Pauline, translated by Corinna Vermeulen. Groningen: University of Groningen Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achenwall, Gottfried, and Pütter, Johann Stephan, 1995. Anfangsgründedes Naturrechts (Elementa Iuris Naturae). Edited and translated by Jan Schröder. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E., 1973. The Kant-Eberhard Controversy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E., 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. Revised edition (originally 1983). New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry E., 2011. Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baiasu, Sorin, 2016. “Right’s Complex Relation to Ethics in Kant: The Limits of Independentism.” Kant-Studien 107: 2–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb, 2020. Baumgarten’s Elements of First Practical Philosophy: A Critical Translation with Kant’s Reflections on Moral Philosophy. Edited and translated by Courtney D. Fugate and John Hymers. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis White, 1965. “Can Kant’s Synthetic Judgments Be Made Analytic?” Kant-Studien 68 (1955): 168–81, reprinted in Beck, Studies in the Philosophy of Kant. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, pp. 74–98.Google Scholar
Beiser, Frederick C., 1992. Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism: The Genesis of Modern German Political Thought, 1790–1800. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouterwek, Friedrich, 1797. Review of Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturrecht, Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen, pp. 265–76, reprinted in Klippel, Hüning, and Eisfeld 2021, pp. 87–93.Google Scholar
Byrd, B. Sharon, and Hruschka, Joachim, 2010. Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carl, Wolfgang, 1989. Der schweigende Kant: Die Entwürfe zu einer Deduktion der Kategorien vor 1781. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Dean, Richard, 2006. The Value of Humanity in Kant’s Moral Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregor, Mary J., 1963. Laws of Freedom: A Study of Kant’s Method of Applying the Categorical Imperative in the Metaphysik der Sitten. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2000. Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2002. “Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right.” In Timmons 2002, pp. 24–64. Reprinted in Guyer, Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom: Selected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 198–242.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2009. “The Crooked Timber of Humankind.” In Kant’s “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim”: A Critical Guide, edited by Rorty, Amelie and Schmidt, James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–49.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2010. “The Obligation to Be Virtuous: Kant’s Conception of the Tugendverpflichtung.” Social Philosophy and Policy 27: 306–32, reprinted in Guyer 2016a, pp. 216–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2012. “‘Hobbes Is of the Opposite Opinion’: Kant and Hobbes on the Three Authorities in the State.” Hobbes Studies 25: 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2015. “Kant and the Moral Politicians.” In Scientific Statesmanship, Governance, and the History of Political Philosophy, edited by Demetriou, Kyriakos N. and Loizides, Antis. London: Routledge, pp. 116–36.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2016a. Virtues of Freedom: Selected Essays on Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2016b. “The Twofold Morality of Recht: Once More unto the Breach.” Kant-Studien 107: 34–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2017. “Transcendental Idealism: What and Why?” In The Palgrave Kant Handbook, edited by Altman, Matthew C.. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2019. Kant on the Rationality of Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2020a. “Achenwall, Kant, and the Division of Governmental Powers.” In Ruffing, Schlitte, and Sadun Bordoni 2020, pp. 201–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2020b. “Mendelssohn, Kant, and Religious Pluralism.” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 68: 589–610.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2021. “Is Sovereignty Divided Still Sovereignty? Kant and The Federalist.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 83 (2021): 365–96.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2022a. “The Empire of Ends.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 96: 204–37.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, 2022b. “Arguing for Freedom of Religion.” Roczniki Filozoficzne 70: 365–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, forthcoming. “Enforcing the Law of Nature: The Background to Kant’s Conception of the Relation between Morality and Recht.” In Kantian Citizenship: Grounds, Standards and Global Implications, edited by Timmons, Mark and Baisu, Sorin. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Philipp-Alexander, 2017. Freiheit und Staatlichkeit bei Kant: Kant-Studien Ergänzungshefte 194. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas, 2012. Leviathan. Edited by Malcolm, Noel. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried, 1990. Kategorische Rechtsprinzipien: Ein Kontrapunkte der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried, 2002. Categorical Principles of Law: A Counterpoint to Modernity. Translated by Mark Migotti, Introduction by Kenneth Baynes. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried, 2004. Categorical Principles of Law: A Counterpoint to Modernity. Translated by Mark Migotti. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Christoph, 2014. Nichtideale Normativität: Ein neuer Blick auf Kants politische Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Horn, Christoph, 2016. “Kant’s Political Philosophy as a Theory of Non-ideal Normativity.” Kant-Studien 107: 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakob, Ludwig Heinrich, 1797. Review of Kant’s Rechtslehre, in Annalen der Philosophie und des philosophischen Geistes von einer Gesellschaft gelehter Männer, vol. 3 (Leipzig: Kleefeld, 1797), columns 13–58, reprinted in Klippel, Hüning, and Eisfeld 2021, pp. 50–76.Google Scholar
Johnson, Robert N., 1996. “Kant’s Conception of Merit.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 77: 310–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline, 2012. Kant and Cosmopolitanism: The Philosophical Ideal of World Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klemme, Heiner F., 2023. Die Selbsterhaltung der Vernunft: Kant und die Modernität seines Denkens. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klippel, Diethelm, Hüning, Dieter, and Eisfeld, Jens, editors, 2021. Die Rezensionen zu Kants Metaphysischen Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre: Die zeitgenössische Rezeption von Kants Rechtsphilosophie, Kant-Studien Ergan̈zungshefte 212. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M., 1996. “Kant’s Formula of Universal Law.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66 (1985): 24–47. Reprinted in Korsgaard, Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M., 2009. Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John, 1960. Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Laslett, Peter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Richard, 2009. Kant’s Theory of Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelssohn, Moses, 2011. Morning Hours: Lectures on God’s Existence. Translated by Daniel O. Dahlstrom and Corey Dyck. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelssohn, Moses, 2012. Last Works. Translated by Bruce Rosenstock. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart, 1977. On Liberty (1859). In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. XVIII, Essays on Politics and Society, Part I, edited by Robson, J. M.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 213–310.Google Scholar
Mulholland, Leslie A., 1990. Kant’s System of Rights. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Nance, Michael, 2012. “Kantian Right and the Categorical Imperative: Response to Willaschek.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20: 541–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, Onora, 2013. Acting on Principle: An Essay on Kantian Ethics. Second edition (originally 1975). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauer-Studer, Herlinde, 2016. “‘A Community of Ends’: Kant’s Realm of Ends and the Distinction between Internal and External Freedom.” Kant-Studien 107: 125–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkard, Terry, 1999. “Kant, Citizenship, and Freedom.” In Immanuel Kant: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, edited by Höffe, Otfried. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 155–72.Google Scholar
Pinzani, Alessandro, 2021. “Wie kann Freiheit ein angeborenes Recht sein?” In Zwischen Recht und Pflichten – Kant’s “Metaphysik der Sitten,” edited by Merle, Jean-Christophe and von Villiez, Carola Freiin. Berlin: Walter de Gruyer, pp. 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, Thomas, 2002. “Is Kant’s Rechtslehre a ‘Comprehensive Liberalism’?” In Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, edited by Timmons, Mark. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–58.Google Scholar
Pufendorf, Samuel, 2003. The Whole Duty of Man, according to the Law of Nature. Translated by Andrew Tooke (1691), edited by Hunter, Ian and Saunders, David. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman, 1953. From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, 1989. “Themes from Kant.” In Förster, Eckhart, edited by Kant’s Transcendental Deductions: The Three Critiques and the Opus Postumum. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 81–113. Reprinted in Rawls, Collected Papers, edited by Samuel Freeman. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 497–528.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, 1999. A Theory of Justice. Second edition (originally 1971). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John, 2000. Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Edited by Herman, Barbara. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Edited by Kelly, Erin. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John, 2005. Political Liberalism. Second edition (originally 1993). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur, 2009. Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur, 2021. Kant and the Law of War. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Philip J., 2005. The Social Authority of Reason: Kant’s Critique, Radical Evil, and the Destiny of Humankind. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ruffing, Margit, Schlitte, Annika, and Bordoni, Gianluca Sadun, editors, 2020. Kants Naturrecht Feyerabend: Analysen und Perspektiven. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thomasius, Christian, 2011. Institutes of Divine Jurisprudence, with Selections from Foundations of the Law of Nature and Nations. Edited and translated by Thomas Ahnert. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens, 2007. Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, Jens, 2022. Kant’s Will at the Crossroads: An Essay on the Failings of Practical Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmons, Mark, editor, 2002. Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werkmeister, William H., 1979. Kant’s Silent Decade: A Decade of Philosophical Development. Tallahassee: University Presses of Florida.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, 1997. “Why the Doctrine of Right Does Not Belong in the Metaphysics of Morals: On Some Basic Distinctions in Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5: 205–27.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, 2002. “Which Imperatives for Right? On the Non-prescriptive Character of Juridical Laws in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals.” In Timmons 2016, pp. 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, 2009. “Right and Coercion: Can Kant’s Conception of Right Be Derived from His Moral Theory?” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 1: 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Howard, 2003. Kant’s Critique of Hobbes. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W., 1999. Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W, 2002. “The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy.” In Timmons 2002, pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W., 2014. The Free Development of Each: Studies on Freedom, Right, and Ethics in Classical German Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zöller, Günter, 2020. “‘Right Rests Solely on Freedom’ (AA 27.2, 1336): The Historical and Systematic Significance of Kant’s Natural Law Feyerabend.” In Ruffing, Schlitte, and Sadun Bordoni 2020, pp. 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this Element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 15
- Cited by