Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:16:49.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Legislative Authority

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2019

M. E. Newhouse*
Affiliation:
University of Surrey

Abstract

This article develops an account of the nature and limits of the state’s legislative authority that closely attends to the challenge of harmonizing Kant’s ethical and juridical theories. It clarifies some key Kantian concepts and terms, then explains the way in which the state’s three interlocking authorities – legislative, executive, and judicial – are metaphysically distinct and mutually dependent. It describes the emergence of the Kantian state and identifies the preconditions of its authority. Then it offers a metaphysical model of the Kantian state and uses it to argue that the activity of juridical lawgiving is an act of the omnilateral will itself. Legislative authority is limited in the sense that it does not include the capacity to create juridical laws that are conceptually incompatible with the idea of universal external freedom. I argue that my proposed account of the legislative authority is wholly consistent with that authority’s exclusive lawgiving capacity and does not threaten the possibility of ‘distributive justice’ – the legal finality that is the sine qua non of a civil condition.

Type
Articles
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

Kant, Immanuel (1996) Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Gregor, Mary J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2016) Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy. Trans. Rauscher, Frederick and Kenneth, R. Westphal., ed. Rauscher, Frederick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (2008) The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (2009) Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (2014) ‘The Normative Constitution of Agency’. In Vargas, Manual and Yaffe, Gideon (eds), Rational and Social Agency: The Philosophy of Michael Bratman (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 190214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller, Sophie ‘Filling the Holes in Kantian Political Obligation’ (working paper).Google Scholar
Newhouse, M. E. (2019) ‘Juridical Law as a Categorical Imperative’. In Demiray, Ruhi and Walla, Alice Pinheiro (eds), Reason, Rights and Law: New Essays on Kantian Philosophy (Cardiff: University of Wales Press), pp. 105–125.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens (2013) ‘Kantian Dilemmas? Moral Conflict in Kant’s Ethical Theory’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 95(1), 3664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walla, Alice P. (2018) ‘Private Property and the Possibility of Consent: Immanuel Kant and Social Contract Theory’. In Krasnoff, Larry, Madrid, Nuria Sanchez and Satne, Paula (eds), Kant’s Doctrine of Right in the Twenty-First Century (Cardiff: University of Wales Press), pp. 2946.Google Scholar
Weinrib, Jacob (2019) ‘Sovereignty as a Right and as a Duty: Kant’s Theory of the State’. In Finkelstein, Claire and Skerker, Michael (eds), Sovereignty and the New Executive Authority (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 2146.Google Scholar
Williams, Howard (1983) Kant’s Political Philosophy. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williams, Howard (2003) Kant’s Critique of Hobbes: Sovereignty and Cosmopolitanism. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar