This article discusses five attempts at justifying the provision of welfare on Kantian grounds. I argue that none of the five proposals is satisfactory. Each faces a serious challenge on textual or systematic grounds. The conclusion to draw from this is not that a Kantian cannot defend the provision of welfare. Rather, the conclusion to draw is that the task of defending the provision of welfare on Kantian grounds is a difficult one whose success we should not take for granted.

European Journal of Philosophy, EarlyView.

Jakob Huber's Kant's Grounded Cosmopolitanism: Original Common Possession and the Right to Visit sets out a rich and novel project of Kant interpretation and defence. Huber does well to wed argumen...