Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T07:59:59.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant, the State, and Revolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2013

Reidar Maliks
Reidar Maliks*
Affiliation:
Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that, although no resistance or revolution is permitted in the Kantian state, very tyrannical regimes must not be obeyed because they do not qualify as states. The essay shows how a state ceases to be a state, argues that persons have a moral responsibility to judge about it and defends the compatibility of this with Kantian authority. The reconstructed Kantian view has implications for how we conceive authority and obligation. It calls for a morally demanding definition of the state and asserts that the primary personal responsibility is not to evaluate the morality of every single law but to evaluate the moral standing of the polity.

Keywords

authorityjudgementKantrevolutionthe state
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 29 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Kantian Review 2013

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

Arendt, H. (1982) Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy. Ed. Ronald Beiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arntzen, S. (1996) ‘Kant on Duty to Oneself and Resistance to Political Authority’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 34, 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, B. S., Hruschka, J. (2010) Kant's Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbinghaus, J. (1953) ‘The Law of Humanity and the Limits of State Power’. Philosophical Quarterly, 3, 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elshtain, J. B. (1981) ‘Kant, Politics, and Persons: The Implications of his Moral Philosophy’. Polity, 14, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flikschuh, K. (2008) ‘Reason, Right, and Revolution: Kant and Locke’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 36, 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, L.-P. (2010) ‘Kant on Property Rights and the State’. Kantian Review, 15, 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtman, S. W. (2002) ‘Revolution, Contradiction, and Kantian Citizenship’. In M. Timmons (ed.), Kant's Metaphysics of Morals (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 209–233.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. (1997) ‘Taking the Law into Our Own Hands: Kant on the Right to Revolution’. In C. Korsgaard, A. Reath and B. Herman (eds), Reclaiming the History of Philosophy: Essays for John Rawls (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 297–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. (1988) Two Treaties of Government. Ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pogge, T. W. (1988) ‘Kant's Theory of Justice’. Kant-Studien, 79, 407–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, A. (2009) Force and Freedom: Kant's Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, A. (1993) Kant's Theory of Justice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J.-J. (1987) On the Social Contract. Ed. Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis, IN, and Cambridge: Hackett.Google 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, 1535–1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J. (2006) ‘Kant's Theory of the State’. In P. Kleingeld (ed.), Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), pp. 179–201.Google Scholar