Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Wood CH 3

    Uploaded by

    Charlybrown
    3 views10 pages
    allen wood

    Original Title

    Wood Ch 3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    allen wood

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views10 pages

    Wood CH 3

    Uploaded by

    Charlybrown
    allen wood

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    3 ‘The Independence of Right from Ethics 3 Morals, Right and Bthies Kans Metapypcsof Morale vides “moral (Sten lta two pats: right (Rect) nd ethics (Et). Bat Kast docs not make iter how nga tis rete {0 eachother, or how thee treatment orm single wholes veo uct a ‘one base spt, how the sphere fight canbe consistently conceive tala ‘enflan terms. Right rounds ast of ite juries odie of right (chic), And all genuine dais fo Kant are grounded on cater Imperatives (MS 6222-3). ts the mark ofa categorical imperative, However, thatthe obligation imposed byt st depend sly om pre ational incentive ‘ald fol ational sings such (44-5427), Yet Kant dstingushethe leltion of right frm that of thes by saying that wth ethical blgtons "the law males dty he incemtve” whe the legsation fight "does ot ncade the Incentive of duty inthe a and 0 dit ofan incest other thn he iden of uty el” (MS 6ax8-9). By this, Kat means tha the incentve pertaining to the elation fright ypc Involves not pure ational ince, ater incentives provided by external coercion through a public author: wold _sypaerl oll that dates ofightennot be orreton cerca imperatives fall andthereforecannotbe dtesatall peopel speaking, Teexpression "uty fright would then contain contradic in adit Related to ths puter islso a question concerning the ground of right In genera acading the round the universal principle of righty ction is right ft can coexist wih everyone eedom in accordance witha nivel law, or ifon its maxim the readon of hove ofech can coeaet with everyone’ fe kon in accordance with universal law” (MS 6230) Oe ar wy interpret. eee eee ee -euprene pine of mara as that rincpe ie ormaatedin the Growndvort (See Guyer in Timmons (ed) 2003 9324-64: Guyer 2005,Ch. 9 Berad Luding, in Timmons (ed), 202, pp 39-84 fo acontesting view chose to ow, ee ‘Maras Wisco, in Tammons (ed), 200 pp. 6-88 and Katrin Fikchah in Denise), 2010, 7p 1-70). Bat Kant neve tel show such derivation might ign And ftir already quesonabe ho the legislation of ight can be based ona ‘tegorcl imperative sal hs to Be equally questionable whether dies of ‘igo thunvertl principle fright, an be sed on the pail of morality, ‘which mappoed to bes categorical imperative (and was, lathe Gowndvork, ‘ten derived fom the concept such ampere). "et anlberbjction fo ths aturlinerpretation that on closer inspection, ‘he pincpleofright docs notevendrectiycommandusto perform actions thle "gh, or timitouraciono these bt oly lus whichacions countas "ight IF inaddontothispeincple oft there salsa“ oft commanding to perform aly actionstht aright (MS 623) then Kant says explicit this "does notexpet much est demand tht sould ity reedom to those “contion jut for he sae ofthis obligation: instead ys oly that retort Time those condions in conformity withthe en oft andthstt may lo be inte hough dense) by others and tse thiva poste ha since able offertber roo (MS 6s) Kant lo adds ater tha the principle fright is nal, wheres the pial of hs i sthetic (MS 6396) sf from cea how an analy principle cook! age orevenadmitof eration om asyaee one Andifte principe fright is "postatelncapableot ater poo then that, too ems toprehdeisbeing devised frm the prinpleof moray, Al these clans might wel be sna equi the deni nt ony thst ties olghtetonthe categoria imperative bat sho thatthe princi orlawof ight ‘could be proven through or rt on any moe fundamental pin al Pal {Gaye however has argued anh (and convincing) that considered in on texte sus quot donot neces preskdeadedaconfthe pring ‘of ight rom something more fndamentl, perhap eves fom the paacipe of moray sl (Goyer 200, p.20)-2) However teres clr no discernible "eduction ofthe principe fright fom the rincpleofmoratyintheteato te Destine af Right or anywhere else in Kans writings. ven Guyer, who belles the principle of ight has such a "edseton” fom “tbe concept of moray” cits that "ay conetrued the cm that Kant univer] principle of iht ist derived fom the Categorie Imperative. icorzet (Guys 200,20) ‘And yt fhe sphere of ight is ndependent of he moral principle or categorical impecative of ethical duty, then Kant seena to be equally llent on what that inde PA Tb DEPENDENCE OF ROH FROM ETHICS 32 Rightis Grounded Solely on External Freedom Tn my ves the ey to Gdinga path through thee difcuties st recogni that Kant eet the common ides that the sphere of igh nha he pisopy ‘ofr and polis, consists merely in a ppition of general mora princlpes {0 the spec ccumstances flaw or thepoitatate, Katey fright rounded on one single very simple and power thougt which dete ight ith the condons for potting what Kan cls "eter redont freedom 1 the independence fom constrltby the choice of another (MS 633). The ‘houghtisthis brcousecoerion te restrtan ofa rational beg esternal fre dom, coercion canbe justified oly when ecsayt pote! he sue exer ‘Sede of ter rational beng acorn to wives om There he orc ‘fone rational being by anther ering subitton ofthe ohac of he eoener {forthat ofthe one coerced regard ote actions ofthat, can never be ied any endo ben eel dt. Coerion cannot ven be sified by those eth ‘aldo ends that might be consider “end of fred” In some deeper oF Ficher sens ofthe word hts bern cannot beatified in order to promt ‘he moral atonnry.or virtue, o the aberence of tonal bigs to moral ends ‘ican be jase ony to pret the externa edo of ration beings thir {cedom even to behave heteoaomousy and imoralyt ilate the morale of autonomy-—at logs they donot thereby infringe the sane external eedom ther Fight does give rie tothe setng of certain ends—spesifcaly tothe end of ‘tabling and pricing the condition of ight. The prs of those nds in ci the ste gitate function ofthe political ate and juridical legiston. tight snot grounded on any ents grounded slyonthe coalitions under which ll ational beings may have externa freedom fm coercion acorn ‘nivel. Ths means that we must understand righ independent ofthe ‘moral av or the cams of rational autonomy. Tere are ever waye ha those who deny this atemptto ground thei dena in Kant texts or Katia do. rine wil ow beely onsder four fhe, at, Kant sys hath concep of dy stake by he dats fight fom «this and fom the moral inperatin through hick webecome susie with ‘ue freedom (MS 6:3) This dean fhe concep, howewes dos nat make tlthe he egisation of ight or utes o gh int ethical te, or bing them ‘under the moral mpeative dee, jot the opposer (MS 6248-2). Second the extra fredom pro‘ectd by right belongs eny toe and rat al beings hence ony tobengs subj othe oral aw But Misnotin their mot and choos actions as means to then—that ee blag have the inate ight o ‘externa feed (MS 6297). “Third there eal awe wil sean etic incentive fo ming one actions towhatisright but the dies to which thisncetve pli arent ethical duties, butatmosindrectl ethical" (MS 62m). The lation of these utes of ight fille outside the legion of hice ane he principle of morality nether dete mines the content oft or explains why we are requted i ener into con ton oie. Fourth, right lo cannot be atid by the way it enables people to elise moral reed or rational agency se Pippin (a Guyer, 2008 pp. 46-46) and “Moya (in Thorndike, 201, pp. 17-5). The wayacondionof ight enables po- ple to develop and exercise their moral capacities does ofcourse exhibit for us some instrament goods that are achieved in acondstion fight. Therese gest, feds from the andpoint ofthis, In Kats concepton of the buran vos tion in istry they may even const the ial end of aman (KU 5429-2, Ath 7301-33 they might even be ast called the elation of feedom? “This end ial very Fine om Kaman pot of ew seen larger and mare Inporanin many ways han right ise But we shuld not ete daze of his splendid end tract rom he el questions "What isthe foundation of rik? ‘What constiutes the bindingnes of duties fight simply x dates igh? What tuthoras anyone to coerce ther ulient” Ths foundton of ightcannot ithe way condition of ight serves any en even an. end that can becaled "he redzation of freedom Forno elon being canbe rightly creed to ere ny end this bela as not chose, however rand, noe, or important tan be righlycoeredoniy when coercion necessary to poet the extra feedom if thes. The vole round of ight simply the protection of external freedom ‘under waver aw Distinguishing the condos under which people mayhave extra feedom inacordance with nivel ne rom lethal leisstion andallendsof mora iy wl enable us to see how right might be a separate sphere of moral (Site) ately Independent ofthe sphere of ethics, on that rests on grounds of pract- calrenson that are independent ofthe categorical imperative that rounds ethic thin even though the bai of ight des have sorching in cotmon withthe Is fetes makingbothofthem spheres of moral. External freedom isthe freedom ofa person to ma choles independently of constraint by thechocer af hers. The only way fr my choices tobe completely ‘independent of everyone ele, however, would be forme to ave absaute power ee noone ee cou have any eternal reo. Tha ste peat ofthe aniveral rnp of gh declarestht external feed, foray gen pec, ghia Fredo only when can coe with th same eedom ofallotheracorigto ‘unhrersl lw (MS 6250), ‘The fonstion ofthe ete sphere of right es in the at ha human beings Inve god reason to protect sghfl Redo, This reson, moreover a to be Independent fehl vale, and ofthe principle of moray rounding ethical les The problem isto understand thie ndependen ground of righ re dom, andl how itremals independent ofthe vale that grounds the cgi ‘al imperative of morality that Kant deve inthe Growswork Another way to lok at this probe is to eas providing an interpretation and defense of Kantaimthatrightuetecnlfredom—indepenence rom coats y the ‘hoc ofanother~is the sole orignal ad inate ight belonging every but ‘bing by vite of his humanity" (MS 627). And dhe sphere fright ito be independent of thar of ei, this defense mute whol inept ofthe eth ‘alpencplethet humanity iaperonsisanendin el, 33 Ends and the Rational Structure of Action ‘The solution to this problem, Tales a Kans conception ofthe fundainen ‘alana structure of ction All ation for Kate bse.on eting an ean ‘objector state fas tobe produced ithe essen character of ational "afureto set ends "Rational nature dscimints el fom theres in ha ets iselran ea (G87). An action by teconcep aha whihlies within the power ofthe agent and is chosen by the agent a sos to some end (G 447) Kant ‘sys "That which serves the wil the objective round oft se dtermination Istheend...By contrast wha contalas mer the roendofthe possiblity a the scion whose elt isthe end called the mss” (G 42) Practical reason pli action ina variety of ways Fst applies ramen ‘ul rales silts tbebest means oa givenend wiles techn mpertive ‘ofreasn, grounding he rational author of such rls requires son pa of failure ofraoaliytotake he indispensable unt in our power oward ny end vwehawe set (G 4414-3) Second, reason appli to action prudential pragmatic ‘or prudential reason counsels uso fr an des of happiness ake amend, andtogiveitrasonl peony ove aloter end cinaion(G ts-16). And ‘hid eason plies to action in the form the moral ine the general basis ofall thi dies isthe moral law as presented the Forma of Humanity st Eodin ‘tself (FH). An end in itselfis not an end we set or an object to be brought about Fr oor refan from certsin action (6 447-30) The categorical imperative that ‘sounding our ethical dates commands sto st certain endo ove per: ‘ionand thehappinessfothers (MS 6385-8) The morale alo forbids ustoset, cata eds (or example, the unhappines of thes, pursued forts own sake) andi further forbids to usecerain meanstoourendsthatarenconsitent with treating ours rhe atonlbeings as eadsin thems. ‘Alleah obligations all catgoia imperatives, retin this way on rao ral constants ang ot ofends—en in themes, rational beng we re ‘eat to tet sends orends oe elected thal we are equied by morality to set All actions eqlredo nbn by eis, ob categoria impeates, are ‘aguled or fbn on acount of ome end—uimately the objective worth of umanity a an end intl, which we are eae to respect our acon. Bat heel imperative eas ations as rguled, probe, oF mertorious fon account of thereto to obligatory ens to be produce: cur ow perf: thn andthe hapines of others (MS 6385-8). Envios or malicious actions, ample, ar frbidden because they make the unhappnes of ome perso ato ‘mend wleacton th pele our lls or improveoar character ae meron ‘usecase they Further the en of our own perfection, and beneficent actions are meritorinasbecss theirend ithe happiness ofanoter Right, by contrast with ethics, hast do wth cl of prescpons and pro Ito on actions that arise wholly independent of he ends ofthese ations ight “hs todo only with the formal condition of choke that tobe ited in cetera elaions in acondace wih ws ffeedom, witout ea or any end. (he mater of hoz)” (MS 647) More spctcaly ight has todo wih actions merino they elite othe fend of othertn choose ther on scion ‘nforteraneofend the thers hve rely set Setag an end isan acti dom. One canst compel fr coerced) se an end, bur onecanBecoeced ‘to perform ations that ae means o end set by others which ae not aso one ‘orm ends, “Another an need cove me do somethngshatis ot my end ‘oniyamean to another end) but nto make his my en” (MS €28)- External ‘Gcodom consists in choolg actns that are means tends you have et while ‘bing fred to act in way tht are means tothe ends of other the sence ‘olan f eternal redom. Right consis is those ronal consaason ue ‘tons tht have to doo wi the ends of hove ations at stead withthe for- ‘nal conditions unde which your ations are compatible wth the external fe dm ofrtionalbeingin general according universal th guarantee lke ‘sternal freedom forall "The foundation of right therefore consist in rational ground that all rational ‘nivel aw: Wht could sich a ground bet It this atonal Being Tee essary set ends Thi implies a rational requirement that be fe to chose the tetons by which {pursue thse ends, An end isnot merely an bjt | merely sero ws fr itisessentaly an object pusue hough my ations, concied "aye as meas to hat end. Human bengs—belgs wih practical resonate ot beings who have thelr ses saised per by the mca of mature (or instance, by the mechanical operation of istics) or thro the Benet ‘cent agency of bengs ater than themsciesich gods or robots. For in ‘order to serve the ends of hun bigs even gs wou ave to be prayed to, and robots would have to be programmed and commanded (ony bya remote control device; thee ations of praying or commanding would hae to be fely shosenas means theendsthebumanbeings hve freely st ncber way of pt tings thi haan beings have the priege—or ify pee they ae sjest tothe curse (Kant recognizes thar itcan be Vewed is bth ways) wbaever od they achieve and whatever happinet hey eno ust be the rev oftheir ‘own worst mast ars from ther sting sn end snd thei selecting or prhaps laveting de meansnecesarytoachievelt and thea ppringthe mesthrough tions chosen bythe human beings soch means (CE 18-20: MA 8-10 flows that a «rational Beng, I ncesriy wil a fara posible consi ‘ent with other demands of reasn) that the actions perform sho seve eae ‘have set, athe tha serving diferent ends, nds by others. Tis sa neces sary demand of atonal agency, part of eset rut It alos demand ene independent of whatever putclarende | may haves and even ofall the ‘ds morally ought to have. Moreve. recognize tht other ronal being essary make the same atonal demand that do in chooser actions oer ther ther owa fey chosen en ae than having thei actons constrained to promote ends chosen by others. To tscoghlze being—whether oneself or snother~as atonal agent sto view ta ing under te ndapensabe rational nce that wo Be re, as as posible, consent with other demands ‘ofreasn, te pursue town ends rather than elf tohaesactions serve ‘heen set by others without elven co-operation o consent My demand tobe externally eis therefore qulifedby the demand of eson that ober have ‘he same tonal claim on eternal eon hat da No one extra redo ‘a be wnlmied thers are to beeternally eas well. This ithe groundofthe ‘lication: onsitent with oer demands fret’ which st be ade to ‘he ratioal demand for extra freedom that ea rational being mas ake, The end of moralty ae objective o binding upon ws Because they ae end et oa cat ak fide aet a tent ieseni ls ee er ter individual bcos tha value that cas be eeogaied by any caonal bing Pesonsarends in themscvesbecause he havea value ht snot cond ‘dal on anyones empiri wishes r desires but makes an impartial chim onus through commando reason Something analogous but qultedstine. sue of the other constitutive neces of rational ature have jst dented namely, _s relent that tbe fe o choos actions in fartberance of nt by it rnher than vingisacionsorcedtoerveendsit does ot sare! Cornea retcton on extern eda cere someones fre them ‘actin avy hatconformstoyou wilrather thn tein makes tei actions serve end you ave et that are not ends they have st (ls moral socostziat, ‘urn ational wilgoeras our actions ovetllngere inclinations that might have prompted sto at otherwise) Kanstheoryofrightisbasedon thee that theonly way exeral coercion ould ever beasties inthe ame of protein, ‘eral redom—the very feedom tat this coercion annul ininges oil ‘A pts cant be ustifably coerced forthe sae of any end whatever: nether ‘the hippies of another, or the happines ofall nor even he happiness ofthe peion who coerced cou provide anadequategroundforthecoerionof fee ational being. Sach etson could const ony nthe fc that he coercion In gueston is tequiedin order to protet the extra freedom ofatoal gens in generar rodom, extra fredem according to universal aw Kas takes it tobe a analytic jdgment tat coercion that protects ght fedora Is itself in accord wih right (Sa). "Right and authorization fo se coercion therefore mean one sn the meting’ (MS 623. The at that igh icon erne wth external feedom ony and Jos not depend on end sthe asc a sn why dts ofrght maybe coeted. Eis dies however arebaed on enon herons equeent that we setand puro certain ends hat ae ls dles—which Kant cals‘ of v= tue (MS 6-5). These ends Blog othe categories four own perfection and ‘he appnes of thes (MS 6985-8), Because ational being cannot be exe. lly coerced to set an end the ulin of hil dates cannot be eteraally ‘ore: "Dutis of vite cannot be subject external elation simply esas they haeto do with anendwhich(othehavingof which isla uy. No exter: allen can ring about onéreting a ed for himsl,.alhough tay prescribe action hat esd oa end witout the subject aking itis end” (MS 69) Butt would be wrong contrary to right) to ty coere the fulfilment of netic datyby coercing de agent tofulillanend hat agent ha note Thefl filment fehl dates mst away through nner socal notexternal ‘contait or coercion (MS 6379) The stem to derive ties of ght fam the ‘supreme princi of moray mus therefore necessary fl sine the oly ates that can be derived rom his pin are dates t woud be wong (catary © "ight to coereanyone tall 34 Rightand Universal Law leis ota requirement of merely praentia reason sills of merely Intrumen- ‘al eson that we should wilt be eto choose aeons that athe ot ‘nds For this requirement apples aot onl tour self-interested actions, bt a0 toallour actions as sch, As fara reston permits, wil hem tobe chosen by ustosere ourends, rather than being forced to serve the end of thers Further, ‘when we take the standpoint of reaon aarti rom all parity to cures, ‘wea e from this perspective that very rational beg equly egies tat ts feadom be protected from destruct, tation, or usurpation by the choke af nother “Ane jot as morlty rogues us, when we set our ends and chose meats 9 ‘hem, to act on maxims that old suv ls fom the impart standpolat of esos eon abo requires us to recognize every person ol gh to be fe fom the constant ofthe waters in choos hs actions Thi atonal requirement ofequal feedom onsstsinhaving the choice of very raining, protected fom eternal nerferenceto the fleet thtitcan be, cosstety alike feedom af al eters according to univer The coercion that onsisent with igh depends on the cm that veryoae' external reedom mst ‘elimi in onder that all may have exe fresdom. Noone exer eedom, sould inital merely forthe sake of some end ther of hat person o a oth «5 But tbe external eedom ofeach of us must be ered inorder that others maybe external free. hiss the bas in Kants theory fetonal ston for fight. the supreme principe fight llth cams nd dies fright. In both this and in gh there'saratonal onsrait impored bythe equal recognition of others ox as we may also pu it bythe reguement hat ou actions conform ‘othe constants of univers la This formal constant of eso, requag the recogni of eters as having these cams we do, nd imiting eres ‘etlons thot conforming to univers lw common to duties of right andof thc. That what mes these two spheres both spheres of mor” (Ste) “To put the same point another way: nether ethical duties noe duties of right are ‘ue nnrrenpRsce oF Rion RON ETHES 79 sl re mein sini way: Dis of benecence ae not based onthe thought (hat ftp others when they ares ned the hey wl be mor iy 0 help se when Lam in etd, or conversely haf do at help the then they (ee Ahly?) wonthelp meter Lewis, [do aothavea dy tort fom ling the righ reedor of ethers bec thnk that wil ake it moe kel that ‘hey etn rom ating ine Both eases involve eather a impartial lin ofreason groundeton the constraint anvesllan. ‘What the wo spheres bare common, therefore ther subjection 0 “he torical imperative, which a sch oly firms what eligsion ix act pon 8 ‘asin ha can hol aa universal law” (MS 62) [spect ht those who ‘trp righ as grounded on the supreme principe of moray that applies to ‘thie may dos beau they are thinking ofthe moral a nothing bt he ‘requiem of unverslably Bur thi ion one aapect ofthe mora prin ‘plete forma asec (epesnted bythe Formula of Univeral Law or Law of Nature) which nes to be complemented by forme hat provide hice with ‘tcharacteriticends and motvaon (the ormulaof Humana Fin a), tha represent etl eglaton aunt the end ofall atonal beingsaton system (the Formula of Autonomy or Ram of Eds) (G26) The merely formal sspectofethicsis indeed present inrghta well bat only sraconetaint cone ing thee ofcbligatonin general which ind diferect pplication night and Inthe ‘Theconsrintsfright roandeon he fend ofothersandtheconstrintot ‘nivel a that plies toh, are therefore analogo constraints ronda. on the categorical imperative that expresses meray “he concept of blgtion” But these constants ae not the same, Because the application ofthe concept of gation (of univer aw idifeentinthetwo wheres Thetwo onesie sls pot such thatthe oe constraint coulbe derive rom ore dependent spon the other, The tic cam that others ave on our respec and concen esto, theirvalcarendsinthemsves bttheircaims fright not Atmos thet talvale pctessedby thers as ends themese would round teeta im ‘hat thei ightshave op uss moral beigs. They could never round the enti ment fone person to have another person coerced external constrained © respect thighs: That at cla, othe coercive enforcement of eternal ee dom a independence of another choi, ne tt belongs gh ale It ould not be derived fom ethics, since the clams of ethics ae never ented 10 ersveenfrerent, Right therfore et soley onthe cm any pean has on ny other, rom the sparta standpoint of sont be ret choose his ‘actions in furtherance ofhis own ends rather than being forced to choose them to ‘Thebsie ofrghtis the protection fxn fda however tise hence otonany ofthe endsndiuas might set Bat the ontlon fightin which the ‘ermal eda of al according to univer lai protected, sa condition no ‘hich wemayallbe coerced enter (S356) Presrvingandperfectingsuch condton cn therefor also be seen a tel kindof end Thaseare the ole mate ends pits ndcillaw the nly ends tater pla as such may ‘igh sek; andallaias ofthe pbc tory maybe tied oly inelation to ‘hase ends. Butts neve the case tha person canbe ied merely becuse Itseres some valable end or other Human preston, hppa, nd ours ing foriastance,arevaluableends hit none ay be cored o promote thrust becuse they are vauble Its not becaethe contin igh is estabshnent ox preseration may be brought unde the neal concep of valle end that, vember ino ch acondtionorcorcdta obeyitsavsor fll tes fight. Rathes coercion can be tied only esse eed forthe reser ‘in ofthe em ofa according to wiveral a andthe condition fights noting except the condition in which threo poet. External coercion seve justin the name fay end, hic dls lvays reston ends. This why no ecl dy. ae sch can ever ey with ta right of extemal coeriv enforcement forcly to cmpel someone to dachare = day of benefcencs, for example tala ilton ofthe sghof te person compli f utes ight had thee bassin de eatepricalimperai then they to cou nat ‘enforced through external constant Wis oly the ron cata theexter- ‘al redom ofeach peso aron ery othe th grounds duties of ght Eiki utes and incentives there coud ot Blan tothe phere of ht as sch They can nether explain why wehave dues fight nor determine the conentof ‘hose dates. The whole dea that ight mst somehow be derived fom es and that the univers elacple of right iat lhe bea veson oor drive fom, ‘the ctegorcal imperative, involves projection onto Ka ofthe basic ror hat legal and poi philosophy snothing but an applietion of his tothe specie ‘dreumstancesoflaw and poi san tor aims human freedom. 35 Rightas Grounded on Humanity Theethicaleliiminolesthewocthofeveryperton anette Tislavoies ‘metic worth that belongs tothe humanity of every person in Kans technical sere ofthe term humanity asthe capacity 0 setendesndchoose means to them (G g439: KU 6st: Ra; Anth 7523-4 37). The worth of human as end in ‘itself provides the end or matte of ethical duty and the motive (ewegeegrgrand) rr ‘rss end (apts haiag a worth for whos sake we at as distinct from the ens tobe produced that might be seas ends based on this end (for cxampl, the ends of our or erection othe happiness f then) Thebasis of ‘he inate ight 1 Feedom is aso “humaiy” nthe same technical snse ofthe term: namely the capacty to st nde asorng to rearon and choose actions 38 ‘mesnrtothem. ach hmanbenghssan innate rghtoeedom "independence from bing consteanel by anther cole), soir as can ext eth te fe dom fever other in accordance witha universal a, hick belongs] every human bingy ree ofhishamanity(MS 6237. Thisbsis however ditinct rm the worth of humanly sendin sl hat round ethical duties by providing the motive for obedience toa xtegorial Imperative. Prone thing the worth of humanity 3 end inf rounds onky ron-coereible (thc tien, eens fight ae abject to external coe ‘don Alb, humanly as end ins rounds duties onan end humanity as end 1 sel, whereas claims of right must be independent of every end of sto, ihe places inner (or sel) constraint on the nat be-prodaced thal we adopt (equinus to include our own perfection and the happnes of ethers among ‘hese ends): but ight aves end ently to ou fee chokes, requting ws instead ‘olimitoarsctionsan tha they are consent ih the external Feed of hers (0458). Humanity sth groundofright in the sense that reogazea person shaving humanly sto appreciate the rational sacar of ction asa choke of ‘means to anend ety the agent and tha the rational regiment hat the choice ‘fan ainal gent be independent ofthe constraining wil of enthe i choot ing stone as mens to ones own end Tt atonal equrerent, impartlly eared hence sbjesto universe the foundation of ight 36 Rightas External Constraint, andas Duty “Thre ievenaratherstrongsescin which duty fight doesnot del round ny doings or efrainins a all Recta the lglation of ight oes no cary witht duty selfs thea Incentive. And ntce agi that Kantsttesthe ‘nisl principle of ight ota proposition hat lls us what to do, but ai lr proposition that ells us which actos count "ight ttl sa Kant $3), ot ho we soul limit ou actions, buthow the are limite in accordance vith xtra ream and hence how they may be rightly mtd by ober [Arig action i one that my at by tna of ght be coerce prevened, hie an action huts wrong (unrd), according to those same standards must sev peeling tpenms hel ee pale, 2 rmeninsreynnsce oF sion om eritice regarded under the egsaon of thes); aber, they spel the we of coercive Sore that thes may ightfilly ue on me, an is that coer fore exrled ‘on me that constates the bindings on me ofa day ofp iin tha ene ‘only duties fight fall undera categorical imperative dosaforsrational bingthat ser ight actions ot merely a atone o which may beret external ompalton (consistent with the ight reson of al wader univer Jaw) but also actions to which us ral ett maelfbased onthe et «alincentve todo ony those actions hat conform othe concept of universally “nding elon. Tate the sense in which the iw of ght” can be led “etegorcal imperative, which as such ly afirns what obligation st upon ‘mas hate olde unter aw” (MS 65) The concept of maxim tat can old unversl ai connected, Kaat ie claiming wi the concep of obligation, bat level more stat than ether Fight or ethics, apd this concep pple othe ablations of ethics and ight in ferent ways In eis, tis apple othe maxis trough which individual rata gents ought to gover theirown condi thoogh he mative of uy and ‘wth immer (esl constrain. Avarational moral agent [ought otejet maxims as contrary duty if they canot harmonize wih iver Iw (G33) and ‘ought dope any masim tha comprehend within the sre rational volo sas uninersallawefralrational beings (G40) ‘As applisl to right, however, this concept concert not individ sel government, but the conditions under which raion belags may be eter nally coastained bys commanding wll with the power t coerce Every rato ral bring a beng tht sets ends and chooses actions 8 means to them wl ‘hata farasposble, consent with ether demands of reasn, st ations shuld secveitsown ends atherthin beingconsrsnedto serve the eos nother, Ae ‘tonal bel acting under the ies of eblgation as conformity wniversallawit an ational clam for selon So much uch external freedoms i consisent th ike freedom forall othe ational beings accord to univers av This

    You might also like