Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-xmwfq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-26T17:16:07.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2025

Edited by
Martin Brecher  and
Philipp-Alexander Hirsch
Martin Brecher
Affiliation:
Universität Mannheim, Germany
Philipp-Alexander Hirsch
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute, Freiburg

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Law and Morality in Kant , pp. 307 - 321
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2026
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

References

Primary Sources

Critique of Practical Reason (1788), ed. by Gregor, Mary J. and Reath, Andrews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Critique of Pure Reason (1781/87), ed. and trans. by Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), trans. by Gregor, Mary J., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A German–English Edition, ed. and trans. by Timmermann, Jens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Kants gesammelte Schriften, ed. by the Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaft, subsequently Deutsche, now Berlin-Brandenburg Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin: Georg Reimer, subsequently Walter de Gruyter, 1900–.Google Scholar
Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, ed. by Rauscher, Fred, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Lectures on Ethics, ed. by Heath, Peter and Schneewind, J. B., trans. by Heath, Peter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
The Metaphysics of Morals (1797), ed. and trans. by Gregor, Mary J., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 1996.Google Scholar
Practical Philosophy, ed. and trans. by Gregor, Mary J., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Religion and Rational Theology, ed. and trans. by Wood, Allen W. and Di Giovanni, George, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Vorlesung zur Moralphilosophie, ed. by Stark, Werner, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Achenwall, Gottfried, and Pütter, Johann S., Anfangsgründe des Naturrechts (Elementa Iuris Naturae) (1750), ed. and trans. by Schröder, Jan, Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1995.Google Scholar
Achenwall, Gottfried, Natural Law (1763), ed. by Kleingeld, Pauline, trans. by Vermeulen, Corinna, with an introduction by Guyer, Paul, London: Bloomsbury, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achenwall, Gottfried: Observationes iuris naturalis, Specimen II, De obligatione et imputatione, Göttingen: Bossiegel, 1754.Google Scholar
Achenwall, Gottfried, Prolegomena iuris naturalis, 2nd ed., Göttingen: Bossiegel, 1763.Google Scholar
Achenwall, Gottfried, Prolegomena to Natural Law (1763), ed. by Kleingeld, Pauline, trans. by Vermeulen, Corinna, Groningen: University of Groningen Press, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Larry, ‘In Defense of the Standard Picture: The Basic Challenge’, Ratio Juris 34 (2021), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexy, Robert, The Argument from Injustice, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Legal Argumentation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Annen, Martin, Das Problem der Wahrhaftigkeit in der Philosophie der deutschen Aufklärung: Ein Beitrag zur Ethik und zum Naturrecht des 18. Jahrhunderts. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1997.Google Scholar
Augustinus, Aurelius, De sermone domini in monte libri II, ed. by Mutzenbecher, Almut, Turnhout: Brepols 1967.Google Scholar
Bacin, Stefano, ‘“Only one obligation”: Kant on the Distinction and the Normative Continuity of Right and Ethics’, Studi Kantiani 29 (2016), 77–90.Google Scholar
Bader, Ralf M., ‘Kant and the Categories of Freedom’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 17 (2009), 799–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, Ralf M., ‘Kant on Freedom and Practical Irrationality’, in Heide, Dai and Tiffany, Evan (eds.), The Idea of Freedom: New Essays on the Kantian Theory of Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023, 198–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baiasu, Sorin, ‘Ethical and Politico-Juridical Norms in the Tugendlehre’, Studi Kantiani 29 (2016), 59–76.Google Scholar
Baiasu, Sorin, ‘Right’s Complex Relation to Ethics in Kant: The Limits of Independentism’, Kant-Studien 107 (2016), 2–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Manfred, ‘Freiheit und Verbindlichkeit in Kants Moralphilosophie’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 13 (2005), 31–43.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb, Baumgarten’s Elements of First Practical Philosophy: A Critical Translation with Kant’s Reflections on Moral Philosophy, ed. and trans. by Fugate, Courtney D. and Hymers, John, London: Bloomsbury, 2020.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb, Initia philosophiae practicae primae, Halle: Hemmerde, 1760.Google Scholar
Beck, Lewis W., A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Berlin, Isaiah, Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture delivered before the University of Oxford on 31 October 1958, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Brandt, Reinhard, ‘Das Erlaubnisgesetz, oder: Vernunft und Geschichte in Kants Rechtslehre’, in: Brandt, Reinhard (ed.), Rechtsphilosophie der Aufklärung, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982, 233–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecher, Martin, ‘Animal Desire and Rational Nature: Kant’s Argument for Marriage and the Problem of “Unnatural” Sex’, in Rinne, Pärttyli and Brecher, Martin (eds.), Kant on Sex, Love, and Friendship. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2023, 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecher, Martin, ‘Ehelicher Geschlechtsgebrauch und Fortpflanzungszweck in §7 der Tugendlehre’, in Waibel, Violetta L. et al. (eds.), Natur und Freiheit: Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018, 1761–8.Google Scholar
Brecher, Martin, ‘Konsequenter Kosmopolitismus’, in Hahmann, Andree and Klingner, Stefan (eds.), Konsequente Denkungsart: Studien zu einer philosophischen Tugend, Hamburg: Meiner, 2024, 62–100.Google Scholar
Brecher, Martin, Vernunftrecht und Verdinglichung: Eine Rekonstruktion von Kants Eherecht, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, Eugen, ‘Der von den Juristen verkannte apagogische Beweis – dazu auch Kant und Kelsen’, in Heldrich, Andreas et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris zum 70. Geburtstag, Munich: C. H. Beck, 2007, 991–1016.Google Scholar
Byrd, B. Sharon, ‘The Elusive Story of Kant’s Permissive Laws’, in Denis, Lara and Sensen, Oliver (eds.), Kant’s Lectures on Ethics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 156–69.Google Scholar
Byrd, B. Sharon. ‘Intelligible Possession of Objects of Choice’, in Denis, Lara (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 93–110.Google Scholar
Byrd, Sharon, ‘Kant’s Theory of Punishment: Deterrence in Its Threat, Retribution in Its Execution’, Law and Philosophy 8 (1989), 151–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, B. Sharon, and Hruschka, Joachim, Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, B. Sharon and Hruschka, Joachim, ‘The Natural Law Duty to Recognize Private Property Ownership: Kant’s Theory of Property in His Doctrine of Right’, The University of Toronto Law Journal 56 (2016), 217–82.Google Scholar
Campos, Andre S., ‘Kant on Acting from Juridical Duty’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 27 (2019), 498–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilovi, Samuele, and Pavlakos, George, ‘The Explanatory Demands of Grounding in Law’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 103 (2022), 900–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilovi, Samuele, and Pavlakos, George, ‘Law-Determination as Grounding’, Legal Theory 25 (2019), 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corradetti, Claudio, ‘Kant’s Legacy and the Idea of a Transitional Jus Cosmpoliticum’, Ratio Juris 29 (2016), 105–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Luke, ‘Kant on Civil Self-Sufficiency’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 105 (2023), 118–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Luke, ‘Whence “Honeste Vive”?’, European Journal of Philosophy 29 (2021), 323–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demiray, Mehmet Ruhi, ‘The Intrinsic Normativity of Law in Light of Kant’s Doctrine of Right’, Contextos Kantianos 3 (2016), 161–87.Google Scholar
Demiray, Ruhi M., ‘Natural Law Theory, Legal Positivism and the Normativity of Law’, The European Legacy 20 (2015), 807–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dindjer, Hasan, ‘The New Legal Anti-Positivism’, Legal Theory 26 (2020), 181–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovi, Suzanne, ‘Political Representation’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2018 ed., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/political-representation/ (accessed 1 June 2024).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald, Justice for Hedgehogs, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald, Law’s Empire, London: Fontana Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Ebels-Duggan, Kyla, ‘Critical Notice’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41 (2011), 549–74.Google Scholar
Ebels-Duggan, Kyla, ‘Kant’s Political Philosophy: Kant’s Political Philosophy’, Philosophy Compass 7 (2012), 896–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebels-Duggan, Kyla, ‘Moral Community: Escaping the Ethical State of Nature’, Philosophers’ Imprint 9 (2009), 1–19.Google Scholar
Eberl, Oliver, and Peter, Niesen, ‘Kommentar’, in Kant, Immanuel, Zum ewigen Frieden, ed. by Eberl, Oliver and Niesen, Peter, Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2011, 89–416.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Julius, ‘Kant und das 20. Jahrhundert’, in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 3: Interpretation und Kritik: Schriften zur theoretischen Philosophie und zur Philosophiegeschichte 1924–1972, ed. by Geismann, Georg and Oberer, Hariolf, Bonn: Bouvier, 1990, 151–74.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Julius, ‘Kants Rechtslehre und die Rechtsphilosophie des Neukantianismus’, in Prauss, Gerold (ed.), Kant: Zur Deutung seiner Theorie von Erkennen und Handeln, Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1973, 322–36.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Julius, ‘Die Strafen für Tötung eines Menschen und Prinzipien einer Rechtsphilosophie der Freiheit’, in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 2: Philosophie der Freiheit: Praktische Philosophie 1955–1972, ed. by Geismann, Georg and Oberer, Hariolf, Bonn: Bouvier, 1988, 283–380.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Joel, ‘Action and Responsibility’, in Black, Max (ed.), Philosophy in America, London: Cornell University Press, 1965, 134–60.Google Scholar
Fernández, Graciela, ‘Utopia and Perpetual Peace’, in Rohden, Valerio, Terra, R. R., de Almeida, G. A., and Ruffing, Margit (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants: Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Congresses, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008, 311–21.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, Grundlage des Naturrechts nach Prinzipien der Wissenschaftslehre, Jena: Christian Ernst Gabler, 1796.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin, ‘Elusive Unity: The General Will in Hobbes and Kant’, Hobbes Studies, 25 (2012), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin, ‘Human Rights in Kantian Mode: A Sketch’, in Cruft, Rowan, Liao, S. Matthew, and Renzo, Massimo (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, 662–70.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin, ‘Innate Right and Acquired Right in Arthur Ripstein’s Force and Freedom’, Jurisprudence 1 (2010), 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin, ‘Justice without Virtue’, in Denis, Lara (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 51–70.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin, Kant and Modern Political Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin, ‘A Regime of Equal Private Freedom? Individual Rights and Public Law in Ripstein’s Force and Freedom’, in Kisilevsky, Sari and Stone, Martin J. (eds.), Freedom and Force: Essays on Kant’s Legal Philosophy, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2017, 55–74.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin, What Is Orientation in Global Thinking?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formosa, Paul, ‘“All Politics Must Bend Its Knee Before Right”: Kant on the Relation of Morals to Politics’, Social Theory and Practice 34 (2008), 157–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forst, Rainer, ‘A Kantian Republican Conception of Justice as Nondomination’, in Niederberger, Andreas, Schink, Philipp (eds.), Republican Democracy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013, 154–68.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer, ‘Kantian Republicanism versus the Neo-Republican Machine: The Meaning and Practice of Political Autonomy’, in Christ, Julia, Lepold, Kristina, Loick, Daniel, and Stahl, Titus (eds.), Debating Critical Theory: Engagements with Axel Honneth, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2020, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, Rainer, Eigentum und Staatsbegründung in Kants Metaphysik der Sitten, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geismann, Georg, ‘Recht und Moral in der Philosophie Kants’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 14 (2006), 3–124.Google Scholar
Gläser, Micha, ‘The Reasonable and the Rational in General and in Particular’, unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Mark, ‘Hartian Positivism and Normative Facts: How Facts Make Law II’, in Hershovitz, Scott (ed.), Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 265–90.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Mark, ‘How Facts Make Law’, Legal Theory 10 (2004), 157–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Mark, ‘The Moral Impact Theory of Law’, Yale Law Journal 123 (2014), 1288–1342.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Mark, ‘On Practices and the Law’, Legal Theory 12 (2006), 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregor, Mary J., The Laws of Freedom: A Study of Kant’s Method of Applying the Categorical Imperative in the ‘Metaphysik der Sitten’, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963.Google Scholar
Gregory, Mike, ‘Does the Kantian State Dominate? Freedom and Majoritarian Rule’, Ratio 36 (2023), 124–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Jacob, and Grimm, Wilhelm (founding eds.), Deutsches Wörterbuch, 14 vols., Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854–1961.Google Scholar
Grotius, Hugo, De jure belli ac pacis libri tres, Paris: Nicolaus Buon 1625.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘Achenwall, Kant, and the Division of Governmental Powers’, in Ruffing, Margit, Schlitte, Annika, and Bodoni, Gianluca Sadun (eds.), Kants Naturrecht Feyerabend: Analysen und Perspektiven, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020, 201–28.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘Enforcing the Law of Nature: The Background to Kant’s Conception of the Relation between Morality and Recht’, in Timmons, Mark and Baiasu, Sorin (eds.), Kantian Citizenship: Grounds, Standards and Global Implications, New York: Routledge, 2025, 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘Civic Responsibility and the Kantian Social Contract’, in Nagl-Docekal, Herta and Langthaler, Rudolf (eds.), Recht – Geschichte – Religion: Die Bedeutung Kants für die Gegenwart, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘The Crooked Timber of Humankind’, in Rorty, Amelie and Schmidt, James (eds.), Kant’s ‘Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim’: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 129–49.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘“Hobbes is of the opposite opinion”: Kant and Hobbes on the Three Authorities in the State’, Hobbes Studies 25 (2012), 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘Is Sovereignty Divided Still Sovereignty? Kant and The Federalist’, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 83 (2021), 365–96.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, Kant. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘Kant and the Moral Politicians’, in Demetriou, Kyriakos N. and Loizides, Antis (eds.), Scientific Statesmanship, Governance, and the History of Political Philosophy, London: Routledge, 2015, 116–36.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, Kant on the Rationality of Morality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right’, in Timmons, Mark (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 23–64; reprinted in Paul Guyer, Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005, 198–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘Kant’s System of Duties’, in Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005, 242–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, Kant’s System of Nature and Freedom, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘The Possibility of Perpetual Peace’, in Caranti, Luigi (ed.), Kant’s Perpetual Peace: New Interpretative Essays, Rome: LUISS University Press, 2006, 161–81.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul, ‘The Twofold Morality of Recht: Once More unto the Breach’, Kant-Studien 107 (2016), 34–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haensel, Werner, Kants Lehre vom Widerstandsrecht: Ein Beitrag zur Systematik der Kantischen Rechtsphilosophie, Berlin: Heise, 1926.Google Scholar
Hanisch, Christoph, ‘Kant on Democracy’, Kant-Studien 107 (2016), 64–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, 2nd ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., ‘Rawls on Liberty and Its Priority’, The University of Chicago Law Review 40 (1973), 534–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, Robert J., ‘Kant Does Not Deny Resultant Moral Luck’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 43 (2019), 136–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Rafeeq, ‘Freedom and Poverty in the Kantian State’, European Journal of Philosophy 26 (2018), 911–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Rafeeq, ‘The Provisionality of Property Rights in Kant’s Doctrine of Right’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 48 (2018), 850–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F., Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, Berlin: Nicolai, 1821.Google Scholar
Henson, Richard G., ‘What Kant Might Have Said: Moral Worth and the Overdetermination of Dutiful Action’, The Philosophical Review 88 (1979), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herb, Karlfriedrich, and Ludwig, Bernd, ‘Kants kritisches Staatsrecht’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 2 (1994), 431–78.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara, ‘Juridical Personality and the Moral Role of Juridical Obligation’, in Shapiro, Tamar, Ebels-Duggan, Kyla, and Street, Sharon (eds.), Normativity and Agency: Themes from the Philosophy of Christine Korsgaard, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022, 240–63.Google Scholar
Heyd, David, ‘Moral and Legal Luck: Kant’s Reconciliation with Practical Contingency’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 5 (1997), 27–42.Google Scholar
Heyse, Johann Christian August, and Heyse, Karl Wilhelm Ludwig, Handwörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 3 vols., Magdeburg: Wilhelm Heinrichshofen, 1833–49.Google Scholar
Himma, Kenneth E., ‘Inclusive Legal Positivism’, in Colemann, Jules L. and Shapiro, Scott (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, 125–65.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Philipp-Alexander, Freiheit und Staatlichkeit bei Kant: Die autonomietheoretische Begründung von Recht und Staat und das Widerstandsproblem, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Philipp-Alexander, ‘Kant über Recht, Autonomie und Selbstzweckhaftigkeit: Naturrecht Feyerabend als Geburtsstunde Kants kritischer Rechtsbegründung?’, in Hüning, Dieter, Klingner, Stefan, and Bordoni, Gianluca Sadun (eds.), Auf dem Weg zur kritischen Rechtslehre?, Leiden: Brill, 2021, 197–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Philipp-Alexander, Kants Einleitung in die Rechtslehre von 1784: Immanuel Kants Rechtsbegriff in der Moralvorlesung ‘Mrongovius II’ und der Naturrechtsvorlesung ‘Feyerabend’ von 1784 sowie in der ‘Metaphysik der Sitten’ von 1797, Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Philipp-Alexander, ‘Von Rechtspflichten zu vollkommenen Tugendpflichten? Kants ungelöstes Problem der Pflichtensystematik’, in Himmelmann, Beatrix and Serck-Hanssen, Camilla (eds.), The Court of Reason, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021, 1457–66.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas, De Cive: The English Version (1642), ed. by Warrender, Howard, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan (1688), ed. by Malcolm, Noel, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Hodgson, Louis-Philippe, ‘Kant on Property Rights and the State’, Kantian Review 15 (2010), 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, Louis-Philippe, ‘Kant on the Right to Freedom: A Defense’, Ethics 120 (2010), 791–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtman, Sarah Williams, ‘Kantian Justice and Poverty Relief’, Kant-Studien 95 (2004), 86–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höffe, Otfried, ‘Kant’s Principle of Justice as Categorical Imperative of Law’, in Yovel, Yirmiyahu (ed.), Kant’s Practical Philosophy Reconsidered: Papers Presented at the Seventh Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter, Dordrecht: Springer, 1989, 149–67.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried, ‘Der kategorische Rechtsimperativ: Einleitung in die Rechtslehre’, in Höffe, Otfried (ed.), Immanuel Kant: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2010, 41–62.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried, Kategorische Rechtsprinzipien, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1990.Google Scholar
Horn, Christoph, ‘Kant’s Political Philosophy as a Theory of Non-Ideal Normativity’, Kant-Studien 107 (2016), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Christoph, Nichtideale Normativität: Ein neuer Blick auf Kants politische Philosophie, Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2014.Google Scholar
Horn, Christoph, ‘Rousseau und Kant über Gemeinwille und Gesellschaftsvertrag’, in Geyer, Paul, Ladenthin, Volker, and Redecker, Anke (eds.), Rousseau über Rousseau. Beiträge zum 300. Geburtstag, Würzburg: Ergon, 2016, 31–46.Google Scholar
Hruschka, Joachim, ‘Das Erlaubnisgesetz der praktischen Vernunft und der ursprüngliche Erwerb von Stücken des Erdbodens’, in Kant und der Rechtsstaat und andere Essays zu Kants Rechtslehre und Ethik, Freiburg: Karl Alber, 2015, 48–88.Google Scholar
Hruschka, Joachim, Kant und der Rechtsstaat und andere Essays zu Kants Rechtslehre und Ethik, Freiburg: Karl Alber, 2015.Google Scholar
Hruschka, Joachim, ‘The Permissive Law of Practical Reason in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals’, Law and Philosophy 23 (2004), 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Jakob, ‘Cosmopolitanism for Earth Dwellers: Kant on the Right to Be Somewhere.’ Kantian Review 22 (2017), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hufeland, Gottlieb, Versuch über den Grundsatz des Naturrechts, Leipzig: Göschen, 1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Aaron, ‘Distributive Justice without Sovereign Rule: The Case of Trade’, Social Theory and Practice 31 (2005), 533–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julius, A. J., ‘Independent People’, in Kisilevsky, Sari and Stone, Martin J. (eds.), Freedom and Force: Essays on Kant’s Legal Philosophy, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2017, 91–110.Google Scholar
Julius, A. J., ‘Reconstruction’, book MS, version 7, December 2013, www.ajjulius.net/reconstruction.pdf (accessed 9 July 2025).Google Scholar
Kahn, Samuel, ‘Kant’s Philosophy of Moral Luck’, Sophia 60 (2021), 365–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalscheuer, Fiete, Autonomie als Grund und Grenze des Rechts: Zum Verhältnis zwischen dem kategorischen Imperativ und dem allgemeinen Rechtsgesetz Kants, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersting, Wolfgang, Wohlgeordnete Freiheit: Immanuel Kants Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersting, Wolfgang, Wohlgeordnete Freiheit: Immanuel Kants Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie, 2nd ed., Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1993.Google Scholar
Klein, Joel T., ‘Permissive Laws and Teleology in Kant’s Juridical and Political Philosophy’, Kantian Review 27 (2022), 215–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline, ‘Approaching Perpetual Peace: Kant’s Defence of a League of States and His Ideal of a World Federation’, European Journal of Philosophy 12 (2004), 304–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline, ‘On Dealing with Kant’s Sexism and Racism’, SGIR Review 2 (2019), 3–22.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline, ‘Kant’s Formula of Autonomy: Continuity or Discontinuity?’, Philosophia 51 (2023), 555–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline, ‘Kant’s Second Thoughts on Colonialism’, in Flikschuh, Katrin and Ypi, Lea (eds.), Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline, ‘Kant’s Theory of Peace’, in Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 477–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline, ‘Me, Myself, and I: Kant’s Republican Conception of Freedom of the Will and Freedom of the Agent’, Studi Kantiani 33 (2020), 103–23.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline, ‘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, 2018, 61–79.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M., Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M., ‘The Right to Lie: Kant on Dealing with Evil’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (1986), 325–49.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M., The Sources of Normativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühnemund, Burkhard, Eigentum und Freiheit: Ein kritischer Abgleich von Kants Rechtslehre mit den Prinzipien seiner Moralphilosophie, Kassel: Kassel University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Kulenkampff, Jens, ‘Über die Rolle des ursprünglichen Vertrages in Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 16 (2008), 165–81.Google Scholar
Larenz, Karl, ‘Sittlichkeit und Recht: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des deutschen Rechtsdenkens und zur Sittenlehre’, in Larenz, Karl (ed.), Reich und Recht in der deutschen Philosophie. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1943, 169–402.Google Scholar
Laschet, Oliver, Metaphysik und Erfahrung in Kants praktischer Philosophie, Freiburg: Alber, 2011.Google Scholar
Locke, John, Second Treatise of Government (1689), ed. by Howard Cox, Richard, Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1982.Google Scholar
Love, Suzanne M., The Material Conditions of Freedom, PhD Dissertation, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 2018.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd, Aufklärung über die Sittlichkeit: Zu Kants Grundlegung einer Metaphysik der Sitten, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd, ‘Die Einteilungen der “Metaphysik der Sitten” im Allgemeinen und die der “Tugendlehre” im Besonderen’, in Trampota, Andreas, Sensen, Oliver, and Timmermann, Jens (eds.), Kant’s ‘Tugendlehre’: A Comprehensive Commentary, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd, Kants Rechtslehre: Mit einer Untersuchung zur Drucklegung Kantischer Schriften von Werner Stark, Hamburg: Meiner, 1988.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd, ‘Kants Verabschiedung der Vertragstheorie’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 82 (1993), 221–54.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd, ‘“Positive und negative Freiheit” bei Kant? Wie begriffliche Konfusion auf philosophi(ehistori)sche Abwege führt’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 21 (2013), 271–305.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd, ‘Sympathy for the Devil(s)? Personality and Legal Coercion in Kant’s Doctrine of Law’, Jurisprudence 6 (2015), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd, ‘Von der coactio hypothetica zum kategorischen Imperativ: Was Kants Autonomie-Lehre Achenwalls Naturrecht von 1755 verdankt’, Rechtsphilosophie – Zeitschrift für Grundlagen des Rechts 6 (2020), 352–67.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd, ‘Whence Public Right? The Role of Theoretical and Practical Reason in Kant’s Doctrine of Right’, in Timmons, Mark (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 159–84.Google Scholar
Maliks, Reidar, Kant’s Politics in Context, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzal, Toni and Pavlakos, George, ‘A Relations-First Approach of Choice of Law’, in Banu, Roxana, Green, Michael S., and Michaels, Ralf (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024, 346–68.Google Scholar
Mayr, Erasmus, ‘Unwitting Omissions, Mistakes and Responsibility’, in Pavlakos, George and Rodriguez-Blanco, Veronica (eds.), Agency, Negligence and Responsibility, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKean, Benjamin L., ‘Kant, Coercion, and the Legitimation of Inequality’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (2019), 1–23.Google Scholar
Messina, J. P., ‘Kant, Smith and the Place of Virtue in Political and Economic Organization’, in Robinson, Elizabeth and Surprenant, Chris W. (eds.), Kant and the Scottish Enlightenment, New York: Routledge, 267–85.Google Scholar
Messina, J. P., ‘Kant’s Provisionality Thesis’, Kantian Review 24 (2019), 439–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messina, J. P., ‘The Paradox of Outer Necessitation in (and after) Kant’s 1784 Course on Naturrecht’, in Ruffing, Margit, Schlitte, Annika, and Bordoni, Gianluca Sadun (eds.), Kants Naturrecht Feyerabend: Analysen und Perspektiven, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020, 169–83.Google Scholar
Messina, J. P., ‘The Postulate of Private Right and Kant’s Semi-Historical Principles of Property’, British Journal of the History of Philosophy 29 (2021), 64–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, Kate, ‘Kant on Traveling Blacksmiths and Passive Citizenship’, Kant-Studien 112 (2021), 105–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Thomas, ‘Moral Luck’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume 50 (1976), 137–52.Google Scholar
Newhouse, Marie, ‘Two Types of Legal Wrongdoing’, Legal Theory 22 (2016), 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, Onora, ‘Consistency in Action’, in Potter, Nelson T. and Timmons, Mark (eds.), Morality and Universality: Essays on Ethical Universalizability, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985, 159–86.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora, ‘Enactable and Enforceable: Kant’s Criteria for Right and Virtue’, Kant-Studien 107 (2016), 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallikkathayil, Japa, ‘Persons and Bodies’, in Kisilevsky, Sari and Stone, Martin (eds.), Freedom and Force: Essays on Kant’s Legal Philosophy, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2017, 35–54.Google Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen R., ‘How Political is the Kantian Church?’, Diametros 17 (2020), 95–113.Google Scholar
Papish, Laura, Kant on Evil, Self-Deception, and Moral Reform, New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlakos, George, ‘Agent-Relativity without Control: Grounding Negligence on Normative Relations’, in Rodriguez-Blanco, Veronica and Pavlakos, George (eds.), Negligence, Agency and Responsibility, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, 118–35.Google Scholar
Pavlakos, George, ‘Coercion and the Grounds of Legal Obligation: Arthur Ripstein’s Force and Freedom’, Jurisprudence 1 (2010), 305–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlakos, George, ‘Redrawing the Legal Relation’, in Fabra-Zamora, Jorge L. (ed.), Jurisprudence in a Globalised World, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2020, 173–194.Google Scholar
Pavlakos, George, ‘The Relation between Moral and Legal Obligation: An Alternative Kantian Reading’, in Pavlakos, George and Rodriguez-Blanco, Veronica (eds.), Reasons and Intentions in Law and Practical Agency, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 228–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlakos, George, ‘Revamping Associative Obligations’, in Khurshid, Salman, Malik, Lokendra, and Rodriguez-Blanco, Veronica (eds.), Dignity in the Legal and Political Philosophy of Ronald Dworkin, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, 337–360.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip, On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip, ‘Two Republican Traditions’, in Niederberger, Andreas and Schink, Philipp (eds.), Republican Democracy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013, 169–204.Google Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice, ‘Honeste vive: Dignity in Kant’s Rechtslehre’, in Cureton, Adam and van der Rijt, Jan-Willem (eds.), Human Dignity and the Kingdom of Ends: Kantian Perspectives and Practical Applications, London: Routledge, 2021, 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice, ‘Kant and the Wisdom of Oedipus’, Jahrbuch Praktische Philosophie in globaler Perspektive/Yearbook Practical Philosophy in a Global Perspective 3 (2019), 126–44.Google Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice, ‘Kant’s Moral Theory and Demandingness’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (2015), 731–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice Pinheiro, ‘Private Property and Territorial Rights: A Kantian Alternative to Contemporary Debates’, in Walla, Alice Pinheiro and Demiray, Mehmet Ruhi (eds.), Reason, Normativity and Law: New Essays in Kantian Philosophy, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2020, 213–32.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, Thomas, ‘Is Kant’s Rechtslehre a “Comprehensive Liberalism”?’, in Timmons, Mark (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 133–58.Google Scholar
Preda, Adina, ‘Are There Any Conflicts of Rights?’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (2015), 677–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John, ‘Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 (1985), 223–51.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph, ‘Responsibility and the Negligence Standard’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (2010), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reath, Andrews, ‘Agency and the Imputation of Consequences in Kant’s Ethics’, in Reath, Andrews (ed.), Agency and Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory: Selected Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 250–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehberg, August Wilhelm, ‘Über das Verhältniß der Theorie zur Praxis’, Berlinische Monatsschrift 23 (1794), 114–43.Google Scholar
Riley, Patrick, ‘Rousseau’s General Will’, in Riley, Patrick (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rousseau, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 124–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, Patrick, ‘Kant on the General Will’, in Farr, James and Williams, David L. (eds.), The General Will: The Evolution of a Concept, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 333–49.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur, ‘Authority and Coercion’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (2004), 2–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur, Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur, Kant and the Law of War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur, ‘Means and Ends’, Jurisprudence 6 (2015), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur, Private Wrongs, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur, ‘Reply to Flikschuh and Pavlakos’, Jurisprudence 1 (2010), 317–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roff, Heather, ‘Kantian Provisional Duties’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 18 (2010), 533–62.Google Scholar
Rostbøll, Christian, ‘Kant and the Critique of the Ethics-First Approach to Politics’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 22 (2019), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, ‘The Social Contract’ and Other Later Political Writings, ed. by Gourevitch, Victor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Savigny, Friedrich C. von, Private International Law: A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (1869), trans. by Guthrie, William, London: T&T Clark Law Publishers, 1880.Google Scholar
Savigny, Friedrich C. von, System des heutigen römischen Rechts, Berlin: Veit, 1840; reprint Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiller, Friedrich, Sämtliche Werke, vol. 1, Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1962.Google Scholar
Seel, Gerhard, ‘How Does Kant Justify the Universal Objective Validity of the Law of Right?’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (2009), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sensen, Oliver, ‘Tugendlehre als Lehre von Zwecken (Einleitung zur Tugendlehre, I–VI)’, in Höffe, Otfried (ed.), Immanuel Kant: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Scott J., Legality, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Quentin, ‘The Idea of Negative Liberty: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives’, in Rorty, Richard, Skinner, Quentin, and Schneewind, Jerome B. (eds.), Philosophy in History: Essays in the Historiography of Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Quentin, Liberty before Liberalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Stavropoulos, Nicos, ‘Legal Interpretivism’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2021), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/law-interpretivist/ (accessed 1 June 2024).Google Scholar
Sticker, Martin, ‘The Case against Different-Sex Marriage in Kant’, Kantian Review 25 (2020), 441–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sticker, Martin, ‘When the Reflective Watch-Dog Barks: Conscience and Self-Deception in Kant’, The Journal of Value Inquiry 51 (2017), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Martin J. and Hasan, Rafeeq, ‘What Is Provisional Right?’, Philosophical Review 131 (2022), 51–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szymkowiak, Aaron. ‘Kant’s Permissive Law: Critical Rights, Sceptical Politics’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 17 (2009), 567–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, Brian, ‘Kant on Property: The Problem of Permissive Law’, Journal of the History of Ideas 62 (2001), 301–12.Google Scholar
Tierney, Brian, ‘Permissive Natural Law and Property: Gratian to Kant’, Journal of the History of Ideas 62 (2001), 381–99.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens, ‘Acting from Duty: Inclination, Reason and Moral Worth’, in Timmermann, Jens (ed.), Kant’s ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, Jens, Kant’s Will at the Crossroads: An Essay on the Failings of Practical Rationality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, Jens, ‘Quod dubitas, ne feceris: Kant on using Conscience as a guide’, Studi Kantiani 29 (2016), 163–7.Google Scholar
Tomassini, Fiorella, ‘Right, Morals, and the Categorical Imperative’, Kant-Studien 114 (2023), 513–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uleman, Jennifer K., ‘External Freedom in Kant’s “Rechtslehre”: Political, Metaphysical’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2004), 578–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varden, Helga, ‘A Kantian Conception of Rightful Sexual Relations: Sex, (Gay) Marriage and Prostitution’, Social Philosophy Today 22 (2006), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varden, Helga, ‘Kant’s Non-Absolutist Conception of Political Legitimacy: How Public Right “Concludes” Private Right in the “Doctrine of Right”’, Kant-Studien 101 (2010), 331–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varden, Helga, ‘Kant’s Non-Voluntarist Conception of Political Obligations: Why Justice Is Impossible in the State of Nature’, Kantian Review 13 (2008), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varden, Helga, Sex, Love, and Gender: A Kantian Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrousalis, Nicholas, ‘Interdependent Independence: Civil Self-Sufficiency and Productive Community in Kant’s Theory of Citizenship’, Kantian Review 27 (2022), 443–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy, ‘Kant’s Legal Positivism’, Harvard Law Review 109 (1996), 1535–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walschots, Michael, ‘Kant and the Duty to Act from Duty’, History of Philosophy Quarterly 39 (2022), 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, ‘How Can Freedom Be a Law to Itself? The Concept of Autonomy in the “Introduction” to the Naturrecht Feyerabend Lecture Notes (1784)’, in Bacin, Stefano and Sensen, Oliver (eds.), The Emergence of Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020, 141–157.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, ‘The Non-Derivability of Kantian Right from the Categorical Imperative: A Response to Nance’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20 (2012), 557–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, ‘Recht ohne Ethik? Kant über die Gründe, das Recht nicht zu brechen’, in Gerhardt, Volker (ed.), Kant im Streit der Fakultäten, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005, 188–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, ‘Right and Coercion: Can Kant’s Conception of Right Be Derived from His Moral Theory?’ International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (2009), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, ‘The Structure of Normative Space: Kant’s System of Rational Principles’, in Himmelmann, Beatrix and Serck-Hanssen, Camilla (eds.), The Court of Reason: Proceedings of the 13th International Kant Congress, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021, 245–66.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, ‘Which Imperatives for Right? On the Non-prescriptive Character of Juridical Laws in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals’, in Timmons, Mark (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus, ‘Why the Doctrine of Right Does Not Belong in the Metaphysics of Morals: On Some Basic Distinctions in Kant’s Moral Philosophy’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5 (1997), 205–227.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard, ‘Moral Luck’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume 50 (1976), 115–35.Google Scholar
Williams, Garrath, ‘Between Ethics and Right: Kantian Politics and Democratic Purposes’, European Journal of Philosophy 20 (2012), 479–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Howard, Kant’s Critique of Hobbes, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian, Vernünftige Gedancken von der Menschen Thun und Lassen, 4th ed., Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig: Johann Benjamin Andreä & Heinrich Hort, 1733.Google Scholar
Wolff, Robert P., In Defense of Anarchism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W., ‘The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy’, The Southern Journal of Philosophy 36 (1998), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W., ‘The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy’, in Timmons, Mark (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2002, 1–21.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W., The Free Development of Each: Studies on Freedom, Right, and Ethics in Classical German Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W., Kant and Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W., Kantian Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W., Kant’s Ethical Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeomans, Christopher, ‘Kant and the Provisionality of Property’, in Lyssy, Ansgar and Yeomans, Christopher (eds.), Kant on Morality, Humanity, and Legality: Practical Dimensions of Normativity, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021, 253–78.Google Scholar
Ypi, Lea, ‘A Permissive Theory of Territorial Rights’, European Journal of Philosophy 22 (2014), 288–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanchet, Maria Eugênia, ‘Towards a Holistic View of Self-Deception in Kant’s Moral Psychology’, Con-Textos Kantianos 16 (2022), 194–219.Google Scholar
Zöller, Günter, ‘“[O]hne Hofnung und Furcht”: Kants Naturrecht Feyerabend über den Grund der Verbindlichkeit zu einer Handlung’, in Dörflinger, Bernd et al. (eds.), Kant’s Lectures, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015, 197–210.Google Scholar
Zylberman, Ariel, ‘Bread as Freedom: Kant on the State’s Duties to the Poor’, in Heide, Dai and Tiffany, Evan (eds.), The Idea of Freedom. New Essays on the Kantian Idea of Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023, 245–64.Google Scholar
Zylberman, Ariel, ‘The Public Form of Law: Kant on the Second-Personal Constitution of Freedom’, Kantian Review 21 (2016), 101–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this book complies with version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range of users and attains the highest (AAA) level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive accessibility guidelines.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Martin Brecher, Universität Mannheim, Germany, Philipp-Alexander Hirsch, Max Planck Institute, Freiburg
  • Book: Law and Morality in Kant
  • Online publication: 16 December 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009292030.021
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Martin Brecher, Universität Mannheim, Germany, Philipp-Alexander Hirsch, Max Planck Institute, Freiburg
  • Book: Law and Morality in Kant
  • Online publication: 16 December 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009292030.021
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Martin Brecher, Universität Mannheim, Germany, Philipp-Alexander Hirsch, Max Planck Institute, Freiburg
  • Book: Law and Morality in Kant
  • Online publication: 16 December 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009292030.021
Available formats
×