Abstract
The chapter attempts to clarify first the particular status that social rights possess and have possessed in the light of their intellectual genealogy and their intrinsically problematic content (§ 1). Next, it examines how Kant related to this broader picture in the text that deals with the question of rights most directly, the first part of the Metaphysics of Morals (§ 2). Thus, the chapter explores the foundation of social rights as understood by Kant (and hinted at in the Metaphysics of Morals), turning instead to the work which is more conceptually connected to the former: the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (§ 3). It is here, within the discourse related to the fundaments of the moral and juridical community, that certain traces can be found of a “latent foundation” for the social sphere and social rights (§ 4).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
As it is known, the topic is intensively investigated as point of intersection amongst philosophers, theorists of law and of politics. By referring to the present debate, let me recall at least the following studies: G. De Búrca, B. de Witte, L. Ogertschnig (eds), Social rights in Europe, Oxford, Oxford University Press 2005; J. Jimenez, Social Policy and Social Change: Toward the Creation of Social and Economic Justice, Los Angeles, Sage, 2010 (2015 2); Th. Casadei, I diritti sociali. Un percorsofilosofico-giuridico, Firenze, Firenze University Press, 2012; H.A. García, K. Klare, L.A. Williams (eds), Social and Economic Rights in Theory and Practice. Critical Inquiries, Abingdon, Routledge, 2015.
- 2.
For what concerns the history and developments of such contraposition, the paradigmatic research developed by G. Oestreich (Geschichte der Menschenrechte und GrundfreiheitenimUmriß, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1968, 1978 2) remains one of the most relevant points of reference.
- 3.
Th. Paine, On the First Principles of Government, in M. Foot, I. Kramnick (eds), Thomas Paine Reader, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1987, p. 464.
- 4.
T. Casadei, I diritti sociali, cit., p. 27–32. On this specific point see also: G. Razzano, Lo “Statuto” costituzionale dei diritti sociali, in E. Cavasino—G. Scala, G. Verde (a cura di), I diritti sociali dal riconoscimento alla garanzia, Napoli, Editoriale Scientifica 2013; E. Catelani, Profili costituzionali della limitazione dei diritti sociali garantiti dallo stato e dalle regioni di fronte alla crisi economica, in E. Catelani, M. Tarchi (a cura di), I diritti sociali nella pluralità degli ordinamenti, Napoli, Editoriale Scientifica 2015, pp. 17–56.
- 5.
MdS, 6: 305–306 [The Metaphysics of Morals, translated and edited by M. Gregor, Introduction by R.J. Sullivan, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 201217, p. 85]. References to Kant’s works embedded in the text are formed by the standard abbreviations of the German titles, followed by the volume number in Academy edition (theAkademieAusgabe) of Kant’s writings in which the work is included, and by the page number in that volume.
- 6.
MdS, 6: 306 [85].
- 7.
MdS, 6: 242 [33–34].
- 8.
B. Ludwig, Einleitung, in I. Kant, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, Meiner, Hamburg, 19982 (1986), spec. pp. xiii-xxvi.
- 9.
A. Pinzani, Der systematische Stellenwert der pseudo-ulpianischen Regeln in Kants Rechtslehre, “Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung”, 59, 1 (2005), pp. 71–94.
- 10.
For what concerns the Kant’s use of the expression “Tun und Lassen”: implicit referring to Christian Wolff, Vernüfftige Gedancken von der Menschen Thun und Lassen, zu Beförderungihrer Glückseligkeit [1720]—now in Ch. Wolff, Gesammelte Werke, hrsg. von J. École, J.E. Hoffmann, M. Thomann, H.V. Arndt, Olms, Hildesheim-New York, 1976, Vol. IV, I.
- 11.
See the following letters by Kant: to Johann Heinrich Lambert (31 December 1765; Ak. X, 56); to Johann GottfriedHerder (9 May 1768; Briefe, Ak. X, 74); again to Lambert (2 September 1770; Ak. X 97); to Marcus Herz (7 June 1771; Ak. X, 123 and another one datable around end 1773 (Ak, X 145); to Moses Mendelssohn (16 August 1783; Ak. X, 346–347); to Heinrich Jung-Stilling (datable after 1 March 1789; Ak. XXIII 495).
- 12.
- 13.
See also Kant’s courses on Moral Philosophy: Mrongovius II, 29: 611–619; Powalski, 27: 131–133, passim. Furthermore: Feyerabend, 27: 1326.
- 14.
VE, 40; Collins, 27: 271–272.
- 15.
This last expression is by Otfried Höffe. See: O. Höffe, Kant’s Principle of JusticeasCategorical Imperative of Law, in Y. Yovel (ed.), Kant’s practica lPhilosophy reconsidered, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, 1989, pp. 149–167; Id.,KategorischeRechtsprinzipien. Ein Kontrapunkt der Moderne, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1994, spec. pp. 11–29 e 126–149; Id., Kategorische Rechtsimperativ. “Einleitung in die Rechtslehre”, in O. Höffe (Hrsg.), Immanuel Kant. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1999, pp. 41–62.
- 16.
- 17.
See MdS, VI, 318, 336–337, 371.
- 18.
H.J. Paton, The Categorical Imperative. A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy, Hutchinson, London, 19655 (1947). Amongst the most recent studies: C. Horn—D. Schönecker (Hrsg.), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 2006; J. Timmermann, Immanuel Kant, Grundlegungzur Metaphysik der Sitten, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 2004 (ed. ingl.: Kant’s “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”. A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007).
- 19.
On this point: A. Pirni, Kant filosofodellacomunità, Edizioni ETS, Pisa 2006, spec. pp. 28–36.
- 20.
See also Ch. Schnoor, Kants kategorischer Imperativ als Kriterium der Richtigkeit des Handelns, Mohr, Tübingen, 1989, spec. pp. 47–48.
- 21.
A. Pirni, Il “regnodeifini” in Kant. Morale, religione e politica in collegamento sistematico, Genova, ilMelangolo 2000.
- 22.
Other scholars could agree with the thesis of the Kingdom of Ends’ double sphere of application. I’m referring here to: D. Pasini, Dirittosocietà e stato in Kant, Giuffrè, Milano, 1957, spec. pp. 49–56; D. Pasini, Das Reich der Zwecke und der politisch-rechtliche Kantianische Gedanke, in Funke G. (Hrsg.), Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, 1974a, pp. 675–691; Id., Il ‘mondo dei fini’ ed il pensiero giuridico-politico kantiano, in A. Rigobello (a cura di), Ricerche sul ‘regno dei fini’ kantiano, Bulzoni, Roma, 1974b (ma 1975), pp. 87130; G. Fassò, Storia della filosofia del diritto, il Mulino, Bologna, 1968, spec. pp. 387–410; P. Quattrocchi, Comunità religiosa e società civile nel pensiero di Kant, Le Monnier, Firenze, 1975, spec. pp. 146–157; Id., L’ideale della comunità umana come determinazione costitutiva del regno dei fini, in A. Rigobello (a cura di), Ricerche sul ‘regno dei fini’ kantiano, cit., pp. 191–213; Ch. Taylor, Kant’s Theory of Freedom, in Id., Philosophy and the Human Sciences (Philosophical Papers, Vol. II), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985, pp. 318–337.
- 23.
Idee, 8: 22.
- 24.
Anfang, 8: 110.
- 25.
“Right, therefore, comprehends the whole of the conditions under which the voluntary actions of any one Person can be harmonised in reality with the voluntary actions of every other Person, according to a universal Law of Freedom” (MdS, 6: 45). See also Gemeinspruch, 8: 289–290.
- 26.
Cfr: Feyerabend, Tit. I (De norma action umliberalium et in genere), 27: 1334 and 1335.
- 27.
GMS, 4: 433.
- 28.
GMS, 4: 435.
- 29.
About this specific point, first see: H.J. Paton. 1946. The Categorical imperative, cit., spec. pp. 207–222, 266–278; G. Prauss, Kant über Freiheit als Autonomie, Frankfurt am Main, Klostermann 1983; H.E. Allison, Kant’s Preparatory Argument in Grundlegung III, in O. Höffe (Hrsg.), Grundlegungzur Metaphysik der Sitten. Ein Kooperativer Kommentar, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1989, pp. 314–324; F. Chiereghin, Il problema della libertà in Kant, Trento, Verifiche 1991, spec. pp. 76–101.
- 30.
On this specific point see: A. Rigobello, “Il ‘Regnodeifini’ come Ideale Regolativo e come Struttura Trascendentale”, in G. Funke (Hrsg.), Aktendes 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, cit., pp. 597–604, spec. pp. 599–600.
- 31.
- 32.
R. Esposito, Communitas. Origine e destino della comunità, Torino, Einaudi 1998, pp. 86–87.
Bibliography
Allison, H.E.1989. Kant’s Preparatory Argument in Grundlegung III. In Grundlegungzur Metaphysik der Sitten. Ein Kooperativer Kommentar, ed. O. Höffe, 314–324. Klostermann: Frankfurt am Main.
Beck, L.W. 1960. A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Casadei, Th. 2012. I dirittisociali. Un percorsofilosofico-giuridico. Firenze, Firenze University Press.
Catelani, E. 2015. Profili costituzionali della limitazione dei diritti sociali garantiti dallo stato e dalle regioni di fronte alla crisi economica. In I diritti sociali nella pluralità degli ordinamenti, eds. E. Catelani and M. Tarchi, 17–56. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.
Chiereghin, F.1991.Il problemadellalibertà in Kant, 76–101. Trento: Verifiche.
Cunico, G.1998. Moralische Teleologie und höchstes Gut bei Kant. Wiener JahrbuchfürPhilosophie XXX: 111–124.
De Búrca, G., B. de Witte, and L. Ogertschnig, eds. 2005. Social rights in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Esposito, R.1998.Communitas. Origine e destinodellacomunità. Torino: Einaudi.
Fassò, G.1968 Storia della filosofia del diritto. Bologna: ilMulino.
García, H.A., K. Klare, and L.A. Williams, eds. 2015. Social and Economic Rights in Theory and Practice. Critical Inquiries. Abingdon: Routledge.
Goyard-Fabre, S.1996. La philosophie du droit de Kant, 17–60. Paris: Vrin.
Goyard-Fabre, S.2004. Philosophie critique et raison juridique, 64–70 e 120–149. Paris: PUF.
Höffe, O. 1989. Kant’s Principle of Justice as Categorical Imperative of Law. In Kant’s Practical Philosophy Reconsidered, ed. Y. Yovel, 149–167. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Höffe, O. 1994. Kategorische Rechtsprinzipien. Ein Kontrapunkt der Moderne, 11–29, e 126–149. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M.
Höffe, O. 1999. Kategorische Rechtsimperativ. “Einleitung in die Rechtslehre”. In Immanuel Kant. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, ed. O. Höffe, 41–62. Berlin: AkademieVerlag.
Horn, C., and D. Schönecker, eds. 2006. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Jimenez, J. 2015. Social Policy and Social Change: Toward the Creation of Social and Economic Justice. Los Angeles: Sage.
Ludwig, B. 1986. Einleitung. In Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, ed. I. Kant, xiii–xxvi. Meiner: Hamburg.
Oestreich, G. 1978. Geschichte der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheitenim Umriß. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Paine, Th. 1987. On the First Principles of Government. In Thomas Paine Reader, eds. M. Foot and I. Kramnick. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Pasini, D. 1957. Diritto società e stato in Kant, 49–56. Milano: Giuffrè.
——— 1974a. Das Reich der Zwecke und der politisch-rechtliche Kantianische Gedanke. In Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, ed. G. Funke, 675–691. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter.
——— 1974b. Il ‘mondodeifini’ ed il pensiero giuridico-politico kantiano. In Ricerchesul ‘regnodeifini’ kantiano, ed. A. Rigobello, 87–130. Roma: Bulzoni.
Paton, H.J. 1946. The Categorical Imperative, 207–222, 266–278;
——— 1947. The Categorical Imperative. A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. London: Hutchinson.
Pinzani, A. 2005. Der systematische Stellenwert der pseudo-ulpianischen Regeln in Kants Rechtslehre. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 59(1): 71–94.
Pirni, A. 2000. Il “regnodeifini” in Kant. Morale, religione e politica in collegamento sistematico. Genova: ilMelangolo.
——— 2006. Kant filosofo della comunità. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.
Prauss, G. 1983. Kant über Freiheit als Autonomie. Klostermann: Frankfurt am Main.
Quattrocchi, P. 1975. Comunitàreligiosa e società civilen el pensiero di Kant.Firenze: Le Monnier.
Quattrocchi, P. 1974. L’ideale della comunità umana come determinazione costitutiva del regno dei fini. In Ricerchesul ‘regnodeifini’ kantiano, ed. by A. Rigobello. Roma: Bulzoni, pp. 191–213.
Razzano, G. 2013. Lo “Statuto” costituzionale dei diritti sociali. In I diritti sociali dal riconoscimento alla garanzia, eds. E. Cavasino, G. Scala, and G. Verde. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.
Rigobello, A. 1974. Il ‘Regnodeifini’ come Ideale Regolativo e come Struttura Trascendentale. In Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, ed. G. Funke 597–604.
Schnoor, Ch. 1989. Kantskategorischer Imperativals Kriterium der Richtigkeit des Handelns. Tübingen: Mohr.
Taylor, Ch. 1985. Kant’s Theory of Freedom. In Philosophy and the Human Sciences (Philosophical Papers, Vol. II), 318–337. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Timmermann, J. 2004. Immanuel Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht. (ed. ingl.: Kant’s “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”. A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Williams, B. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
Wolff, Christian. 1976. Vernüfftige Gedancken von der Menschen Thun und Lassen, zu Beförderungihrer Glückseligkeit [1720]. In Ch. Wolff, Gesammelte Werke, hrsg. von J. École, J.E. Hoffmann, M. Thomann, H.V. Arndt, Olms, Hildesheim-New York, Vol. IV, I.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pirni, A. (2016). The Place of Sociality: Models of Intersubjectivity According to Kant. In: Faggion, A., Pinzani, A., Sanchez Madrid, N. (eds) Kant and Social Policies . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42658-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42658-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42657-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42658-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)