Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:38:01.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kantian Marriage and Beyond: Why It Is Worth Thinking about Kant on Marriage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Lina Papadaki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kant has famously argued that monogamous marriage is the only relationship where sexual use can take place “without degrading humanity and breaking the moral laws.” Kantian marriage, however, has been the target of fierce criticisms by contemporary thinkers: it has been regarded as flawed and paradoxical, as being deeply at odds with feminism, and, at best, as plainly uninteresting. In this paper, I argue that Kantian marriage can indeed survive these criticisms. Finally, the paper advances the discussion beyond marriage. Drawing on Kant's conception of friendship, I suggest that he might have overlooked the possibility of sex being morally permissible in yet another context.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , Spring 2010 , pp. 276 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by Lina Papadaki

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

Denis, Lara. 2001. From friendship to marriage: Revising Kant. Philosophy and phenomenological research 63 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, Barbara. 1993. Could it be worth thinking about Kant on sex and marriage? pp. 53–75. In A mind of one's own: Feminist essays on reason and objectivity, ed. Antony, L.M. and Witt, C.San Francisco, Calif.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1960. Observations on the feelings of the beautiful and the sublime. Trans. J. T. Goldthwait. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1969. Lectures on ethics. Trans. L. Infield. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1978. Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. Trans. V. L. Dowdell. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1996. Metaphysics of morals. Trans. M. Gregor; ed. M. Gregor. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1997. Kant on the Metaphysics of Morals: Vigilantius’ lecture notes, pp. 251–452. In The Lectures on ethics. Trans. P. Heath; ed. Heath, P. and Schneewind, J.B.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996. Creating the kingdom of ends: Reciprocity and responsibility in personal relations, pp. 188–221. In Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. n.d. Integrity and interaction (lecture 6). Self constitution: Action, identity and integrity.http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/Korsgaard.LL6.pdf (accessed July 28, 2009).Google Scholar
Mendus, Susan. 1992. Kant: “An honest but narrow‐minded bourgeois’?” pp. 166–90. In Essays on Kant's practical philosophy, ed. Williams, H.Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Papadaki, Lina. 2007. Sexual objectification: From Kant to contemporary feminism. Contemporary Political Theory 6 (3): 330–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1988. Feminism and the marriage contract, pp. 154–88. In The sexual contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Hannelore. 1997. Kant's patriarchal order, pp. 275–96. In Feminist interpretations of Immanuel Kant, ed. Schott, R.M.University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Donald. 2004. Kant and the marriage right. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85 (1): 103–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witt, Charlotte. 1996. How feminism is re‐writing the philosophical canon. The Alfred P. Stiernotte Memorial Lecture in Philosophy at Quinnipiac College.http://www.uh.edu/~cfreelan/SWIP/Witt.html (accessed July 28, 2009).Google Scholar