Kant and the In(ter)dependence of Right and Virtue
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2017v16n3p395Resumo
This paper aims to clarify how Kant understood the relation between the two spheres of morals (Right and virtue). Did he, as O’Neill claims, acknowledge the need for civic virtue as necessary for maintaining a liberal state? Or did he take the opposite view (shared by many contemporary liberals) that citizens’ virtuous dispositions are irrelevant and that all that matters is the justice of institutions? Though The Metaphysics of Morals gives the impression that Kant shared the latter position, I will argue that, in fact, Kant held a position somewhere between the Rousseauian view (which O’Neill believes Kant endorsed) that the essential difficulty of politics concerns the cultivation of civic duty in citizens, and contemporary liberals’ exclusive focus on the justice of institutions, by arguing that it is the laws themselves that foster respect for the laws. In short, Kant views virtue as the felicitous by-product of legality.Referências
Flikschuh, Katrin. 2010. Justice without Virtue. In Kant’s “Metaphysics of Morals”: A Critical Guide, ed. Lara Denis, 51–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guyer, Paul. 2002. Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right. In Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretive Essays, ed. Mark Timmons, 23–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. 1987. The Federalist Papers. London: Penguin Books.
Hart, H.L.A. 1994. The Concept of Law. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Höffe, Otfried. 1990. Kategorische Rechtsprinzipien: Ein Kontrapunkt der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Höffe, Otfried. 1999. Der kategorische Rechtsimperativ. In Immanuel Kant: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, ed. Otfried Höffe, 41–62. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Kaufman, Alexander. 1999. Welfare in the Kantian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaulbach, Friedrich. 1970. Moral und Recht in der Philosophie Kants. In Recht und Ethik: Zum Problem ihrer Beziehung im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Jürgen Blühdorn and Joachim Ritter, 43–58. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
Kersting, Wolfgang. 1984. Wohlgeordnete Freiheit: Immanuel Kants Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kersting, Wolfgang. 1992. Kant’s Concept of the State. In Essays on Kant’s Political Philosophy, ed. Howard Williams, 143–165. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kersting, Wolfgang. 2004. Kant über Recht. Paderborn: Mentis Verlag.
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996. Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ludwig, Bernd. 1988. Kants Rechtslehre. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1997. Discourses on Livy. Translated by Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nance, Michael. 2012. Kantian Right and the Categorical Imperative: Response to Willaschek. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20: 541–556.
O’Neill, Onora. 1990. The Great Maxims of Justice and Charity. In Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy, 219–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Neill, Onora. 1996. Towards Justice and Virtue: A Constructive Account of Practical Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peterson, Andrew. 2011. Civic Republicanism and Civic Education: The Education of Citizens. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pettit, Philip. 1997. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plato. 1937. The Republic. Translated by Paul Shorey. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pogge, Thomas. 2002. Is Kant’s Rechtslehre a “Comprehensive Liberalism”? In Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretive Essays, ed. Mark Timmons, 133–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Revised Ed. Cambridge (Mass): Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Edited by Erin Kelly. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Ripstein, Arthur. 2009. Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Rosen, Allen D. 1993. Kant’s Theory of Justice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Tyler, Tom R. 2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Van der Linden, Harry. 1988. Kantian Ethics and Socialism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Willaschek, Marcus. 1997. Why the Doctrine of Right does not belong in the Metaphysics of Morals. Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 5: 205–227.
Willaschek, Marcus. 2009. Right and Coercion: Can Kant’s Conception of Right be Derived from his Moral Theory? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17: 49–70.
Willaschek, Marcus. 2012. The Non-Derivability of Kantian Right from the Categorical Imperative: A Response to Nance. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20: 557–564.
Wood, Allen. 2002. The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy. In Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretive Essays, ed. M. Timmons, 1–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
This obra is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional
