An Assessment of the Debate on the Normative Foundation of Kant’s Philosophy of Right
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2318-9800.v30i3p77-90Keywords:
Right, External coercion, Obligation, Moral LawAbstract
This article presents an analysis of the contemporary debate concerning the normative foundation of Kant's philosophy of right. The fundamental question is how to reconcile moral obligation, which is based on the principle of the autonomy of the will understood as self-coercion, with the thesis that law is defined by the legitimacy of external coercion, namely coercion by others. Following the exposition of the principal theses of Guyer and Willaschek, two of the most prominent participants in the debate, the strengths and limitations of both positions are then elucidated.
Downloads
References
Almeida, G. A. (2006) Sobre o princípio e a lei universal do Direito em Kant. Kriterion, v. 114, p. 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-512X2006000200002.
Baccin, S. (2016) “‘Only one obligation’: Kant on the Distinction and the Normative Continuity of Right and Ethics”, Studi Kantiani 29, 77-90. https://dx.doi.org/10.19272/201602901005.
Baum, M. (2017) Drei kategorishe Imperative bei Kant. In. Dorflinger, Bernd; Huning, Dieter; Kruck, Gunter. Das Verhaltnis von Recht und Ethik in Kants praktischer Philosophie (131-152). Hildesheim: Olms.
Dutra, D. (2023) Vida e morte na filosofia prática de Kant: elementos para uma análise do aborto, a partir da Doutrina do direito. Studia Kantiana (Rio De Janeiro), v. 20, p. 7-21. https://doi.org/10.5380/sk.v20i3.91344
Ebbinghaus, J. (1973) “Kants Rechtslehre und die Rechtsphilosophie des Neukantianismus”, in: Gerold Prauss (ed.), Kant. Zur Deutung seiner Theorie von Erkennen und Handeln (322-336), Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.
Guyer, P. (2002) Kant's Deductions of the Principles of Right. In: Timmons, M. (ed.) Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays (23-64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guyer, P. (2016) The twofold morality of Recht: Once more unto the breach, in: Kant-Studien, v. 107 (1), pp. 34-63. https://doi.org/10.1515/kant-2016-0003.
Höffe, O. (2010) “Der kategorische Rechtsimperativ. Einleitung in die Rechtslehre”, in: Otfried Höffe (ed.), Immanuel Kant: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre (41-62). Berlim: Akademie-Verlag, 2010.
Horn, C. (2014) Nichtideale Normativität. Ein neuer Blick auf Kants politische Philosophie, Berlim: Suhrkamp.
Kant, I. (1980) Crítica da razão pura (KrV). Valério Rohden e Udo Moosburger (trad.). São Paulo: Abril Cultural.
Kant, I. (1900ff.) Gesammelte Schriften. Hrsg.: Bd. 1-22 Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 23 Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, ab Bd. 24 Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Berlim.
Kant, I. (2014) Princípios metafísicos da doutrina do direito (MS). Joãosinho Beckenkamp (trad.). São Paulo: Editora WMF Martins fontes.
Kant, I. (2014) A religião nos limites da simples razão (RGV). Bruno Cunha (trad.). Petrópolis: Vozes.
Kant, I. (2017) Metafísica dos costumes (MS). Bruno Nadai, Diego Kosbiau (trad.), Monique Hulshof. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Ludwig, B. (2017) Recht ohne Personen? Oder: Wieviel Metaphysic braucht die (kantische) Rechtlehre? In. Dorflinger, Bernd; Huning, Dieter; Kruck, Gunter. Das Verhaltnis von Recht und Ethik in Kants praktischer Philosophie (pp. 191-218). Hildesheim: Olms.
Pinzani, A. (2017) Gibt es eine ethischen Pflicht, ausserlich frei zu sein? In. Dorflinger, Bernd; Huning, Dieter; Kruck, Gunter. Das Verhaltnis von Recht und Ethik in Kants praktischer Philosophie (pp.171-190). Hildesheim: Olms.
Pogge, T. W. (2002) ‘Is Kant’s Rechtslehre a “Comprehensive Liberalism”?’, in Mark Timmons (ed.) Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays (pp.133–158), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ripstein, A. (2009) Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Terra, R. (1987) A distinção entre direito e ética na filosofia kantiana. In. Filosofia Política 4 (49-65). Porto Alegre, L&PM.
Timmons, M. (ed.) (2002). Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Torres, J. C. B. (2018) Boutwerk, Balthazar Barbosa, Willaschek e os Paradoxos da Filosofia do Direito de Kant. In. Analytica, Rio de Janeiro, vol 22 nº 2, p. 1-27.
Willaschek, M. (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, 5, pp. 205-227.
Willaschek, M. (2002) ‘Which Imperatives for Right? On the Prescriptivity of Juridical Laws in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals’, in Mark Timmons (ed.) Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays (pp. 65–87), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willaschek, M. (2005) Recht ohne Ethik? Kant über die Gründe, das Recht nicht zu brechen’, in V. Gerhardt and Th. Meyer (eds.) Kant im Streit der Fakultäten (pp. 188–204), Berlim: de Gruyter.
Willaschek, M. (2009) Right and Coercion: Can Kant’s Conception of Right be Derived from his Moral Theory? In. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 17(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672550802610982
Wood, A. (2002) The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy, in Mark Timmons (ed.) Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays (pp. 188–204), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zöller, G. (2017) “Allgemeine Freiheit”. Kants Naturrecht Feyerabend uber Wille, Recht und Gesetz. In Dorflinger, Bernd; Huning, Dieter; Kruck, Gunter. Das Verhaltnis von Recht und Ethik in Kants praktischer Philosophie (p. 71-90). Hildesheim: Olms.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Joel T Klein
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Information and conceptions on the texts are complete responsibility of the authors.
All the articles submitted before July 5th 2018 and those published after July 2021 are licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND license – except those published between the aforementioned dates, which are under the CC BY-NC-SA license. The permission for the translation of the material published under the license CC BY-NC-ND by third parts can be obtained with the consent of the author.
Open access policies - Diadorim
Rules applied before July 5th 2018:
Presenting a submission to our Editorial Board implies granting priority of publication for “Cadernos de filosofia alemã”, as well as transferring the copyright of texts (once published), which will be reproduced only with the manifest authorization of the editors. Authors keep the right to reuse the texts published in future editions of their work, without paying any fees to "Cadernos”. We will not grant the permission to re-edit or translate the texts for third parts without agreement of the author.
