Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T22:57:36.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant’s Provisionality Thesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2019

J. P. MESSINA
J. P. MESSINA*
Affiliation:
The University of New Orleans
*
Email: jp.messina@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that Kant’s mature political philosophy entails the provisionality thesis. The provisionality thesis asserts that in a world like ours, populated with beings sufficiently like us, acquired rights (rights to external objects of choice, including property, sovereignty and territory) are necessarily provisional. I motivate the standard view, which restricts the notion of provisional right to the state of nature and the transition from the state of nature to the civil condition. I then provide two textual arguments against it. I conclude by reflecting on the normative implications of the provisionality thesis, arguing that they are more modest than has been formerly appreciated.

Keywords

provisional rightlegitimacyglobal justiceKant
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 439 - 463
Copyright
© Kantian Review, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle (1984) Politics. In Complete Works of Aristotle. Ed. Barnes, Jonathan, vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brudner, A. (2011) ‘Private Law and Kantian Right’. University of Toronto Law Journal, 61/2, 279–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, S. and Hruschka, J. (2006a) ‘The Natural Law Duty to Recognize Private Property Ownership: Kant’s Theory of Property in his Doctrine of Right’. University of Toronto Law Journal, 56/2, 217–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, S., and Hruschka, J. (2006b) ‘Der ursprünglich und a priori vereinigte Wille und seine Konsequenzen in Kants “Rechtslehre”’. Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik, 1, 141–65.Google Scholar
Ebbels-Duggan, K. (2012) ‘Kant’s Political Philosophy’. Philosophy Compass, 7(12), 896–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, E. (2005) Kant’s Politics: Provisional Theory for an Uncertain World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, K. (2000) Kant and Modern Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flikschuh, K. (2012) ‘Elusive Unity: The General Will in Hobbes and Kant’. Hobbes Studies, 25, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregor, M. (1996) ‘Translator’s Introduction’. In Gregor, Mary J. (ed.), The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1961) The Concept of Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. (2018) ‘The Provisionality of Property Rights in Kant’s Doctrine of Right’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 48/6, 850–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herb, K. and Ludwig, B. (1993) ‘Naturzustand, Eigentum und Staat. Immanuel Kants Relativierung des “Ideal des hobbes”’. Kant-Studien, 84/3, 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, P. A. (2017) Freiheit und Staatlichkeit bei Kant. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, L. P. (2010) ‘Kant on Property Rights and the State’. Kantian Review, 15/1, 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. (2017) ‘Cosmopolitanism for Earth Dwellers: Kant on the Right to be Somewhere’. Kantian Review, 22/1, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemer, M. (2013) The Problem of Political Authority. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1996) Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Gregor, Mary J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1997) Lectures on Ethics. Ed. Heath, Peter and Schneewind, J. B., trans. Peter Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (2007) Anthropology, History and Education. Ed. Louden, Robert B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2016) Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Fred Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kersting, W. (1993) Wohlgeordnete Freiheit: Immanuel Kants Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Kersting, W. (2009) ‘The Civil Constitution in Every State Shall Be a Republican One’. In Ameriks, Karl and Höffe, Otfried (eds), Kant’s Moral and Legal Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 246–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, P. (2011) Kant and Cosmopolitanism: The Philosophical Ideal of World Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, P. (2018) ‘The Principle of Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory: Its Rise and Fall’. In Watkins, Eric (ed.), Kant on Persons and Agency (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 61–80.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, K. (2018) ‘The Claims of Animals and the Needs of Strangers: Two Cases of Imperfect Right’. Journal of Practical Ethics, 6/1, 19–51.Google Scholar
Niesen, P. (2017) ‘What Kant would have Said in the Refugee Crisis’. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 50, 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. (2012) ‘Kant and the Social Contract Tradition’. In Ellis, Elisabeth (ed.), Kant’s Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press), pp. 25–41.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. (2016) ‘Enactable and Enforceable: Kant’s Criteria for Right and Virtue’. Kant-Studien, 107/1, 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallikkathayil, J. (2017) ‘Persons and Bodies’. In Kisilevsky, S., and Stone, M. (eds), Freedom and Force: Essays on Kant’s Legal Philosophy (Oxford: Hart Publishing), pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ripstein, A. (2009) Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, A. (2012) ‘Kant and the Circumstances of Justice’. In Ellis, Elisabeth (ed.), Kant’s Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press), pp. 42–73.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1997) The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings. Trans. Victor Gourevitch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schaefer, A. (2017) ‘An Alternative to Heteronomy and Anarchy: Kant’s Reformulation of the Social Contract’. In Robinson, Elizabeth and Surprenant, Chris W. (eds), Kant and the Scottish Enlightenment (New York: Routledge), pp. 245–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, J. (2013) ‘Democratic Authority and the Boundary Problem’. Ratio Juris, 26/3, 326–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, J. (2016) Boundaries of Authority. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stilz, A. (2014) ‘Provisional Rights and Non-State Peoples’. In Flikschuh, Katrin and Ypi, Lea (eds), Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sreenivasan, G. (2000) ‘What is the General Will?’. Philosophical Review, 109/4, 545–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varden, H. (2008) ‘Kant’s Non-Voluntarist Conception of Political Obligations: Why Justice is Impossible in the State of Nature’. Kantian Review, 13/2, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J. (1996) ‘Kant’s Legal Positivism’. Harvard Law Review, 109/7, 1535–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walla, A. (2016) ‘Common Possession of the Earth and Cosmopolitan Right’. Kant-Studien, 107/1, 160–78.Google Scholar
Wood, A. (2014). The Free Development of Each: Studies on Freedom, Right, and Ethics in Classical German Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ypi, L. (2014) ‘A Permissive Theory of Territorial Rights’. European Journal of Philosophy, 22/2, 288–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar