Advertisement

Kantian Framework

  • Gemma K. Bird
Chapter
Part of the International Political Theory book series (IPoT)

Abstract

The contribution of this book to international political theory is to argue for a weak universalism useful for establishing the foundations of just and fair cross-cultural dialogues. In making these claims I propose internal and external self-law giving as potentially a priori concepts and demonstrate through an engagement with key Kantian texts the origins of these arguments within this chapter. I engage not only with the work of Kant himself but also contemporary Kantians to establish a position under which we can separate Kantian morality from Kantian politics, accepting that his model of thought is suitable for both ‘angels but also for devils’ (Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 2009, p. 90). In concluding, the chapter operationalises the categories of internal and external self-law giving in to the themes of equality of individuals, self-mastery, and freedom from domination and oppression which are then analysed within the textual analysis.

References

  1. Becker, D. (1993). Kant’s Moral and Political Philosophy. In R. C. Solomon & K. M. Higgins (Eds.), The Age of German Idealism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Botterell, A. (2011). Review of Arthur Ripstein’s Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. The Canadian Journal of Political Science, 44, 457–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Flikschuh, K., & Ajei, M. (2014). Colonial Mentality: Kant’s Hospitality Right Then and Now. In K. Glikschuh & L. Ypi (Eds.), Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives (pp. 221–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gregor, M. (1996). Introduction. In I. Kant (Ed.), The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Habermas, J. (1968). Knowledge and Human Instincts (J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kant, I. (1785/2009). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (H. Paton, Trans.). New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  7. Kant, I. (1784/2006). An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? In P. Kleingeld (Ed.), Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kant, I. (1793/2006a). On the Common Saying: This May Be True in Theory, But it Does Not Hold in Practice. In P. Kleingeld (Ed.), Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kant, I. (1795/2006b). Towards Perpetual Peace. In P. Kleingeld (Ed.), Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kant, I. (1797/1996). The Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kersting, W. (1992). Politics, Freedom, and Order: Kant’s Political Philosophy. In P. Guyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. O’Neill, O. (2016). Enactable and Enforceable: Kant’s Criteria for Right and Virtue. Kant-Studien, 107(1), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pauer-Studer, H. (2016). “A Community of Rational Beings”. Kant’s Realm of Ends and the Distinction between Internal and External Freedom. Kant-Studien, 107(1), 125–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pogge, T. (2012). Is Kant’s Rechtslehre a ‘Comprehensive Liberalism?’. In E. Ellis (Ed.), Kant’s Political Theory. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ripstein, A. (2009). Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rousseau, J. (1947). The Social Contract and Discourses. London: Everymans Library.Google Scholar
  17. Sandel, M. (1988). The Political Theory of the Procedural Republic. In G. Bryner & D. Thompson (Eds.), The Constitution and Regulation of Society. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  18. Stern, D. (1991). Autonomy and Political Obligation in Kant. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 29(1), 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Taylor, C. (1985). Kants Theory of Freedom. In Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers (Vol. 2, pp. 318–337). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Williams, H. (2003). Kant’s Critique of Hobbes. Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gemma K. Bird
    • 1
  1. 1.PoliticsUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations