Kant's Doctrine of Right

Kant's Politics in Context shows how Kant developed his legal and political philosophy in an environment of controversy between conservative and radical observers of the French Revolution. Reidar Maliks argues that Kant recognized in the Revolution of 1789 his own concept of equal freedom, which he in the following decade developed into a theory of law and the state. This concept of freedom was at the root of his condemnation of paternalistic government, which makes persons dependent on the good will of a ruler, and his denunciation of direct democracy, which subjects persons to the arbitrary decisions of a majority. It led Kant to develop a republican constitutionalism, where persons are free and independent because they are subject only to law.

That Kant idealized the public sphere is well known, but that he intentionally developed his own philosophy in polemical articles and pamphlets aimed for a wide audience has not been fully appreciated. Paying attention to the debates he sparked during the 1790s- where radical followers like Fichte, Erhard, and Bergk clashed with conservative critics like Rehberg, Möser, and Gentz-can help us understand Kant's political philosophy. The first comprehensive account of Kant's politics in context, this book provides a fresh perspective both on a foundational moment for modern political philosophy and on Kant's central political concepts, including freedom, rights, citizenship, revolution, and war.

The essay focuses on the Kantian question “What is Law?” (Was ist Recht?) by investigating what makes Law Law. Starting from this question, the Author tries to rethink the relationship between law and morality – that is the central question of Kant’s legal theory – through the distinction between Prescriptivity and Normativity. Whereas morality prescribes a duty, juridical law turns any duty that has been prescribed into an obligation. Moreover, according to Kantian categories, juridical law doesn’t prescribe anything, but makes a duty binding.

Kant's Politics in Context is the first comprehensive contextual study of Kant's legal and political philosophy. It gives an account of the development of his thought before, during, and after the French revolution. Reidar Maliks argues that Kant provided a philosophical defence of the revolution's republican ideals while aiming to avoid the twin dangers of anarchy and despotism. Central to this was a concept of equal freedom, constituted by legal rights and duties within a state. The close connection between freedom and the rule of law accounts for the centrality of the state in Kants thought.

That Kant idealized the public sphere is well known, but that he intentionally developed his own philosophy in polemical essays and pamphlets aimed for a wide audience has not been fully appreciated. Maliks shows how our understanding of Kant's political philosophy can be enriched through paying attention to the discussions he sparked during the 1790s where radical followers including Fichte, Erhard, and Bergk clashed with conservative critics such as Rehberg, Möser, and Gentz. This book provides fresh knowledge about a foundational moment for modern political thought and offers a new perspective on Kant's central political concepts, including freedom, rights, citizenship, revolution, and war.

En este trabajo quiero defender una interpretación de las que, por comodidad, llamaré “reglas ulpianas” (RU), según la cual ellas indican, en principio, la forma que en Kant tiene el exeundum est e statu naturali (la obligación de abandonar el ‘estado de naturaleza’). Para ello voy a concentrar mi atención en el primer deber jurídico (“vive honestamente”) y voy a intentar mostrar que éste no es sólo condición de posibilidad de la agencia jurídica, como ha sostenido Pinzani (Pinzani 2005), sino que, en rigor, la existencia de una constitución civil (de un derecho público) es la única condición bajo la cual la “vida honesta” (en el sentido de Kant) es posible.

En el siguiente artículo me gustaría abordar el papel de las tres reglas
pseudo-ulpianas que aparecen, en la Doctrina del Derecho, en la “División general de los deberes jurídicos” y que plantean muchos problemas. Hasta la fecha, ha habido pocas tentativas de dar una definición precisa y una respuesta a estos problemas. Sin embargo, estas normas representan una clave importante para mejorar la comprensión de la totalidad de la Doctrina del derecho. Determinar su papel sistemático es el tema principal de este trabajo.