Kant’s Apriorical Idea of Law: Two Ways of its Justification

Wojciech Załuski

doi:10.18778/0208-6069.100.03

Authors

Wojciech Załuski Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Law and Administration, Department of Legal Philosophy and Legal Ethics https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4860-0836

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.100.03

Keywords:

idea of law, external freedom, the categorical imperative, radical evil

Abstract

Kant proposed an apriorical account of the idea of law, according to which the law’s only legitimate goal is to guarantee for each citizen a possibly broad scope of external freedom compatible with the same scope of all other citizens. However, Kant did not make it entirely clear how this idea is to be justified. This paper presents two ways of justification, drawing on Kant’s view of the human nature. The first one appeals to the apriorical components of this view (rationality, freedom, equality, and dignity), and the second one is based on its empirical components (the ambivalent account of human predispositions).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bekrycht, Tomasz. 2019. “The Idea of Positive Law – Immanuel Kant’s Transcendental Argument.” Avant. Pismo Awangardy Filozoficzno-Naukowej 4: 146–157. https://doi.org/10.26913/avant.2019.01.09
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.26913/avant.2019.01.09

Guyer, Paul. 2002. “Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right.” In Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretive Essays. Edited by Mark Timmons. 23–64. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 1956. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by Lewis White Beck. New York: Macmillan.
Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 1963. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Nokman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Herbert James Paton. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 1978. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Translated by Victor Lyle Dowdell. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 1991. The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Jane Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 1999. “On the Common Saying: ‘This May Be True In Theory, But It Does Not Apply In Practice’.” In Political Writings. Translated by Hugh Barr Nisbet. 61–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 2008. Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. Translated by Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson. New York: HarperOne.
Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 2020. Die Metaphysik der Sitten. Berlin: Boer Verlag.
Google Scholar

Paton, Herbert J. 1946. The Categorical Imperative. A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. London: Hutchinson University Library.
Google Scholar

Pogge, Thomas W. 2002. “Is Kant’s Rechtslehre a ‘Comprehensive Liberalism’?” In Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretive Essays. Edited by Mark Timmons. 133–158. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar

Uleman, Jennifer K. 2004. “External Freedom in Kant’s Rechtslehre: Political, Metaphysical.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68(3): 578–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2004.tb00367.x
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2004.tb00367.x

Wood, Allen W. 1999. Kant’s Ethical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar