Bentham was once thought to be the father of the principle which he called ‘the greatest happiness principle’. Now Hutcheson with his ‘greatest happiness for the greatest numbers’ is the generally accepted source of this test of moral behaviour. It is not in Britain, however, but in Germany that one finds its origin. A quarter of a century before Hutcheson's An Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, a German philosopher provided a formulation of the principle (...) on which Hutcheson relied. (shrink)

Published in 1797, the Doctrine of Right is Kant's most significant contribution to legal and political philosophy. As the first part of the Metaphysics of Morals, it deals with the legal rights which persons have or can acquire, and aims at providing the grounding for lasting international peace through the idea of the juridical state. This commentary analyzes Kant's system of individual rights, starting from the original innate right to external freedom, and ending with the right to own property and (...) to have contractual and family claims. Clear and to the point, it guides readers through the most difficult passages of the Doctrine, explaining Kant's terminology, method and ideas in the light of his intellectual environment. One of the very few commentaries on the Doctrine of Right available in English, this book will be essential for anyone with a strong interest in Kant's moral and political philosophy. (shrink)

Published in 1797, the Doctrine of Right is Kant's most significant contribution to legal and political philosophy. As the first part of the Metaphysics of Morals, it deals with the legal rights which persons have or can acquire, and aims at providing the grounding for lasting international peace through the idea of the juridical state. This commentary analyzes Kant's system of individual rights, starting from the original innate right to external freedom, and ending with the right to own property and (...) to have contractual and family claims. Clear and to the point, it guides readers through the most difficult passages of the Doctrine, explaining Kant's terminology, method and ideas in the light of his intellectual environment. One of the very few commentaries on the Doctrine of Right available in English, this book will be essential for anyone with a strong interest in Kant's moral and political philosophy. (shrink)

The article traces the origin of Kant's distinction between the right to a good name in the Doctrine of Right and the right to respect for human dignity in the Doctrine of Virtrue. The story begins with Pufendorf's distinction between existimatio simplex and existimatio intensiva. "Existimatio" for Pufendorf means "worth." Accordingly, existimatio simplex is plain human worth, whereas existimatio intensiva is the worth of dignitaries, meaning of persons who are ascribed special worth. For Thomasius and Barbeyrac "existimatio" becomes "respect." Existimatio (...) simplex then becomes, for example for Achenwall, simple respect, which the law requires everyone to give his fellow human beings. Existimatio intensiva becomes recognition, among other things, of another's probity. The latter existimatio intensiva is a part of ethics. Kant then looks for the existimatio simplex that can be contrasted to this existimatio intensiva. He finds it in the respect for the dignity of all of mankind.Der Beitrag sucht den Ursprung von Kants Unterscheidung zwischen dem Recht der Unbescholtenheit, das in die Rechtslehre, und dem Recht auf Achtung vor der Würde des Nebenmenschen, das in die Tugendlehre gehört. Die Geschichte beginnt mit Pufendorfs Unterscheidung von existimatio simplex und existimatio intensiva. "Existimatio" bedeutet bei Pufendorf "Würde". Existimatio simplex ist danach die schlichte Menschenwürde, existimatio intensiva die Würde von Würdenträgern , also von Personen, denen eine besondere Würde zukommt. Bei Thomasius und Barbeyrac wird "existimatio" zu "Achtung". Die existimatio simplex wird dadurch, etwa bei Achenwall, zu der schlichten Achtung, die dem Nebenmenschen entgegenzubringen das Recht fordert. Die existimatio intensiva wird zur Anerkennung unter anderem der Rechtschaffenheit eines Menschen. Die letztere existimatio intensiva gehört in die Ethik. Kant sucht die existimatio simplex zu dieser existimatio intensiva, die er in der Achtung vor der Menschenwürde des anderen findet. (shrink)

One way of shedding light on the distinctions drawn between various crimes against property - all involving the deprivation of possession of a movable object - is by considering the victim's participation in the deprivation. First, it may be the case that the victim does not participate in this deprivation at all, for example, because he is not present when it occurs. Second, it may be that the victim is in a situation of necessitas simplex seu absoluta at the time (...) of the deprivation, because he is physically unable to prevent it, even though he may be present and actually observing it occur. Or, he may assist or tolerate the deprivation in an ignorantia facti , not recognizing that he is being depossessed of his own property. Third, the victim, though actually participating in the deprivation, may be either in a situation of necessitas cum adiunctione or acting under ignorance parallel to ignorantia iuris , because he is deceived as to the economic reasonableness of transferring the object to the depossessor. Leaving out the uninteresting first group of cases, the article claims that the differences drawn between the crimes committed by the depossessor depend upon why the victim's participation cannot be imputed to him. In the second group of cases, the victim's presence or his apparent participation cannot be imputed to him on the first level of imputation, because he has not willfully tolerated or participated in the depossession. In the third group of cases, the victim's participation in the depossession can be imputed to him on the first level of imputation but not on the second level, because, although the victim has willfully participated in the depossession, he has not acted voluntarily. The article first discusses the structures of imputation, which were primarily developed during the eighteenth century. It sketches the differences between two levels of imputation and between ordinary and extraordinary imputation, indicating the reasons for excluding ordinary imputation. The article then considers various types of property crimes, all involving the deprivation of possession of a movable object. The claim is made that these crimes can be distinguished on the basis of whether the victim's participation can be imputed to him on the first or second level of imputation. Contemporary German law differentiates between Diebstahl, Erpressung and Betrug thus covering most of the relevant cases in the three groups. Diebstahl generally covers the cases in groups one and two. Erpressung and Betrug cover most of the relevant cases in the third group. Yet the offense definitions of these crimes are historically accidental. Accordingly, they are neither systematically complete, nor do they cover all of the relevant cases. In addition, the article includes a discussion of the differentiation between Raub and räuberische Erpressung. (shrink)

Kant entwickelt im letzten Jahrzehnt des 18. Jahrhunderts als erster den Gedanken des Rechtsstaats, der bei ihm (lateinisch) „status iuridicus“ heißt, was er selbst mit „rechtlicher Zustand“ übersetzt. Einige seiner Anhänger erfinden als Übersetzung von „status iuridicus“ das Wort „Rechtsstaat“, das es bis dahin noch nicht gegeben hatte und das dann im Laufe des 19. Jahrhunderts Kants eigene Übersetzung verdrängt. Wichtige Regeln werden als Regeln des Rechtsstaats zuerst von Kant formuliert, so die Regel, die wir heute mit dem Rechtssprichwort „Keine (...) Strafe ohne Gesetz“ wiedergeben, oder die Regel, dass die rechtsstaatlichen Organe verpflichtet sind, begangene Straftaten zu verfolgen, was wir heute als „Legalitätsprinzip“ bezeichnen. - In Kants Ethik steht der Begriff der Menschenwürde im Mittelpunkt. Diese Würde setzt voraus, dass der Mensch als ein geistiges Wesen betrachtet wird.0. (shrink)

Welcker was the first to develop the concept "Rechtsstaat" . Kant's concept of freedom, however, provides the background for Welcker's concept of the Rechtsstaat. This article investigates the question of how the concept "respect toward others" is related to the concepts "Rechtsstaat" and "right of freedom". According to Kant, "respect" is not a duty of law but rather a duty of virtue. Still we owe others fulfillment of this duty in a manner that is similar to the way we owe (...) them the fulfillment of a duty of law. Furthermore this duty of virtue corresponds to a moral right of others to respect. Although mutual respect among citizens is not constitutive of a Rechtsstaat, still it is in fact necessary for the survival of a Rechtsstaat. (shrink)

The article compares Kant's individual ethics and his philosophy of the state to the extent that it involves "morality with respect to the principles of public law". Kant rejects any form of first-order consequentialism as a standard of individual or state action. Nevertheless, he does indicate that the individual may hope to attain the summum bonum and that states may rely on attaining perpetual peace, as the highest political good. Accordingly, he introduces a second-order consequentialism into his moral philosophy. Understanding (...) the parallelism between the role of the summum bonum in Kant's individual ethics and the role of perpetual peace in his philosophy of the state clarifies the nature of second-order consequentialism. The requirement that the state be governed by the rule of law corresponds to the requirement in Kant's individual ethics that the individual follow the dictates of the categorical imperative without regard to utilitarian considerations, or that first-order consequentialism be rejected. The article argues that just as acting out of duty, regardless of any benefits to be gained thereby, is a necessary, and arguably sufficient, condition for attaining the summum bonum, so too is the rule of law a necessary, if not also sufficient, condition for the state in attaining perpetual peace. Der Beitrag zieht eine Parallele zwischen Kants Individualethik und seiner Staatsphilosophie, soweit "die Moral in Ansehung ihrer Grundsätze des öffentlichen Rechts" in Rede steht. Hier wie dort wendet sich Kant gegen jede Form eines "Konsequentialismus erster Ordnung". Mit seiner Hoffnung auf das individuelle höchste Gut einerseits und den ewigen Frieden auf Erden andererseits aber bringt er einen "Konsequentialismus zweiter Ordnung" ins Spiel. Die Parallele von Individualethik und Staatsphilosophie beleuchtet den Konsequentialismus zweiter Ordnung in der Staatsphilosophie mit ihrer Hoffnung auf den ewigen Frieden. Der nicht-konsequentialistischen Individualethik - "nicht-konsequentialistisch" im Sinne eines "Konsequentialismus erster Ordnung" - korrespondiert das Konzept des Rechtsstaats. Der Rechtsstaat erweist sich dabei als eine notwendige Bedingung für den ewigen Frieden. (shrink)

Der Beitrag kommt zuerst auf den Ursprung des Begriffs des Supererogatorischen zu sprechen. Er erörtert die Entwicklung des Gegensatzspaars praeceptum und consilium in der Antike und im Mittelalter. Der Begriff des Supererogatorischen und in seiner Folge der des consilium wird in der Reformation verworfen. An die Stelle der Unterscheidung von praeceptum und consilium tritt die Unterscheidung von vollkommenen und unvollkommenen Pflichten. Diese letztere Unterscheidung findet sich schon in der Antike. Nach der Reformation wird sie wiederbelebt. Die Kritik der Differenz von (...) vollkommenen und unvollkommenen Pflichten führt schließlich, über die Unterscheidung von verdienstlichen und schuldigen Pflichten, zu Kants Unterscheidung von juridischen und ethischen Gesetzen. In einer gewissen Weise läßt Kants Moralphilosophie Raum für supererogatorisches Verhalten. Eine verbreitete Kant-Interpretation bezieht den Begriff des Supererogatorischen auf das Ganze der ethischen Gesetze, und dann hat supererogatorisches Verhalten keinen Platz mehr. Für Kant bezieht sich der Begriff des Supererogatorischen dagegen auf das Ganze der juridischen Gesetze, mit Bezug auf die die Erfüllung der unvollkommenen Pflichten gegen andere supererogatorischen Charakter hat. Im Positivismus des 19. Jahrhunderts gehen die alten Unterscheidungen verloren. Die Neubelebung der Diskussion über den Begriff des Supererogatorischen im 20. Jahrhundert deutet auf eine Wende hin. (shrink)

In connection with his discussion of the three Ulpian formulae, Kant introduces three “leges,” namely the “lex iusti,” the “lex iuridica,” and the “lex iustitiae,” which he then defines in § 41 of the Doctrine of Right. The three “leges” correspond to the attributes “right,” “juridical,” and “established as right.” These three attributes in turn relate to the possibility, the reality, and the (material) necessity of our rights and juridical duties. The three “leges” and attributes have certain consequences for the (...) division of public justice, public justice being constitutive of the juridical state, into “iustitia tutatrix,” “iustitia commutativa,” and “iustitia distributiva.” This article provides a comprehensive account of all these concepts from § 41 of the Doctrine of Right. It also explains what until now has seemed to be a rather cryptic comment Kant makes at the end of his discussion of the Ulpian formulae regarding internal and external legal duties, and those legal duties that contain the derivation of the external legal duties from the principle of the internal legal duties through subsumption. Indeed the article provides the key to understanding the entire Doctrine of Right from a totally new perspective. (shrink)

Der Beitrag bestimmt den logischen Standort und die Funktion des ursprünglich und a priori vereinigten Willens in Kants Rechtslehre. Der ursprünglich und a priori vereinigte Wille wird von einer ursprünglichen Gemeinschaft aller Menschen am Erdboden hervorgebracht, die ihrerseits auf einem ursprünglichen Recht eines jeden auf einen Platz auf dieser Erde gründet. Das ursprüngliche Recht auf einen Platz selbst folgt aus dem ursprünglichen Freiheitsrecht. Der ursprünglich vereinigte Wille richtet sich auf die Aufteilung des Erdbodens. Dadurch wird der ursprüngliche Erwerb von Sachen, (...) insbesondere von Grundstücken, möglich. Kant formuliert diese Möglichkeit in dem Postulat des § 2 der Rechtslehre, das ein Erlaubnisgesetz der praktischen Vernunft enthält: "Es ist möglich, einen jeden äußeren Gegenstand meiner Willkür als das Meine zu haben." Das Postulat folgt nicht analytisch aus dem ursprünglichen Freiheitsrecht. Es wird durch eine reductio ad absurdum der Annahme des Gegenteils begründet und enthält infolgedessen einen synthetischen Rechtssatz a priori. Zu dem Gebot, den Erdboden aufzuteilen, kommt das Postulat des öffentlichen Rechts , das den Eintritt in den -Staat gebietet, um das Eigentum an den Sachen zu sichern. Auch dieses Postulat hat den Charakter eines synthetischen Rechtssatzes a priori. Die Gründung eines -Staats setzt den ursprünglichen Kontrakt voraus. Das Eigentum an Grund und Boden geht jeder Staatsgründung voran, weil eine Staatsgründung nur möglich ist, wenn das Volk, das einen Staat gründen will, über ein mögliches Staatsgebiet verfügt.This article examines the logical location and function of the originally and a priori united will in Kant's Doctrine of Right. The originally and a priori united will flows out of the original community of all human beings on the earth's surface, which in turn is based on each person's original right to a place on this earth. The original right to a place on the earth's surface follows analytically from the original right to freedom. The originally united will commands us to divide the surface of the earth. This will to divide the land makes original acquisition possible. Kant formulates this possibility in § 2 of the Doctrine of Right, which contains a permissive law of practical reason: "It is possible to have any external object of my choice as mine." This postulate does not follow analytically from the original right to freedom. Instead it is based on a reductio ad absurdum and thus contains a synthetic principle of law a priori. The postulate of public law is added to the will to divide the earth's surface and requires entering a juridical state in order to secure property rights to things. This postulate is also a synthetic principle of law a priori. Founding a juridical state presupposes the original contract. Ownership of land logically precedes the founding of any state, because a state can be founded only if the people intending to found it have a state territory. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Kant-Studien Jahrgang: 106 Heft: 2 Seiten: 347-351.

Name der Zeitschrift: Kant-Studien Jahrgang: 109 Heft: 1 Seiten: 170-174.

abstract Applied ethics engages with concrete moral issues. This engagement involves the application of philosophical tools. When the philosophical tools used in applied ethics are problematic, conclusions about applied problems can become skewed. In this paper, I focus on problems with the idea that comparison cases must be exactly alike, except for the moral issue at hand. I argue that this idea has skewed the debate regarding the moral distinction between killing and letting die. I begin with problems that can (...) arise from attempts to produce comparison cases that are exactly alike, except for the moral issue at hand. I then argue that attempts to produce such examples are doomed to failure. Finally, I argue that abandoning concerns about similarity advances the debate regarding the moral distinction between killing and letting die. (shrink)

Anthropologists have documented substantial cross-society variation in people’s willingness to treat strangers with impartial, universal norms versus favoring members of their local community. Researchers have proposed several adaptive accounts for these differences. One variant of the pathogen stress hypothesis predicts that people will be more likely to favor local in-group members when they are under greater infectious disease threat. The material security hypothesis instead proposes that institutions that permit people to meet their basic needs through impartial interactions with strangers reinforce (...) a tendency toward impartiality, whereas people lacking such institutions must rely on local community members to meet their basic needs. Some studies have examined these hypotheses using self-reported preferences, but not with behavioral measures. We conducted behavioral experiments in eight diverse societies that measure individuals’ willingness to favor in-group members by ignoring an impartial rule. Consistent with the material security hypothesis, members of societies enjoying better-quality government services and food security show a stronger preference for following an impartial rule over investing in their local in-group. Our data show no support for the pathogen stress hypothesis as applied to favoring in-groups and instead suggest that favoring in-group members more closely reflects a general adaptive fit with social institutions that have arisen in each society. (shrink)

In some medical cases there is a moral distinction between killing and letting die, but in others there is not. In this paper I present an original and principled account of the moral distinction between killing and letting die. The account provides both an explanation of the moral distinction and an explanation for why the distinction does not always hold. If these explanations are correct, the moral distinction between killing and letting die must be taken seriously in medical contexts. Defeasibly, (...) when an agent kills she takes responsibility, but when an agent lets die she does not take responsibility. Therein lies the moral distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction, however, is defeated when an agent is already responsible for the surrounding situation. In such cases, killing does not involve taking any further responsibility and letting die does not avoid taking any responsibility. Medical examples are frequently complicated because patients' autonomous choices impact upon medical practitioners' surrounding responsibility. (shrink)

Algorithmic predictions are promising for insurance companies to develop personalized risk models for determining premiums. In this context, issues of fairness, discrimination, and social injustice might arise: Algorithms for estimating the risk based on personal data may be biased towards specific social groups, leading to systematic disadvantages for those groups. Personalized premiums may thus lead to discrimination and social injustice. It is well known from many application fields that such biases occur frequently and naturally when prediction models are applied to (...) people unless special efforts are made to avoid them. Insurance is no exception. In this paper, we provide a thorough analysis of algorithmic fairness in the case of insurance premiums. We ask what “fairness” might mean in this context and how the fairness of a premium system can be measured. For this, we apply the established fairness frameworks of the fair machine learning literature to the case of insurance premiums and show which of the existing fairness criteria can be applied to assess the fairness of insurance premiums. We argue that two of the often-discussed group fairness criteria, independence (also called statistical parity or demographic parity) and separation (also known as equalized odds), are not normatively appropriate for insurance premiums. Instead, we propose the sufficiency criterion (also known as well-calibration) as a morally defensible alternative that allows us to test for systematic biases in premiums towards certain groups based on the risk they bring to the pool. In addition, we clarify the connection between group fairness and different degrees of personalization. Our findings enable insurers to assess the fairness properties of their risk models, helping them avoid reputation damage resulting from potentially unfair and discriminatory premium systems. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to show that Graham Priest's dialetheic account of semantic paradoxes and the paraconsistent logics employed cannot achieve semantic universality. Dialetheism therefore fails as a solution to semantic paradoxes for the same reason that consistent approaches did. It will be demonstrated that if dialetheism can express its own semantic principles, a strengthened liar paradox will result, which renders dialetheism trivial. In particular, the argument is not invalidated by relational valuations, which were brought into paraconsistent logic (...) in order to avoid strengthened liar paradoxes. (shrink)

This chapter proceeds from the standard picture of the relation between intuitions and experimental philosophy: the alleged evidential role of intuitions about hypothetical cases, and experimental philosophy’s challenge to these judgments, based on their variation with philosophically irrelevant factors. I will survey some of the main defenses of this standard picture against the x-phi challenge, most of which fail. Concerning the most popular defense, the expertise defense, I will draw the bleak conclusion that intuitive expertise of the envisaged kind is (...) largely a myth. Next, I will consider the mischaracterization objection, which has mainly been developed by Deutsch and Cappelen on the basis of textual evidence: that philosophers do not appeal to intuitions as evidence for their case judgments, but instead argue for them. This would render the x-phi challenge mostly irrelevant, due to its focus on intuitions about hypothetical cases. I will then consider a few instructive replies to the mischaracterization objection, which are all unconvincing on further inspection. Finally, I will discuss some potential normative consequences of the mischaracterization objection, and I will argue that it recommends a shift away from the excessive focus on intuitions about cases in metaphilosophy and experimental philosophy, towards more work on the role of argumentation in the method of cases. More speculatively, I claim that philosophers should always argue for their case judgments, even if they have strong intuitions about them, because an argument-based methodology would be more transparent and philosophically fruitful than one that mainly relies on intuition. (shrink)

The notion of the highest good used to occupy a primary role in ethical theorising, but has largely disappeared from the contemporary landscape. The notion was central to both Aristotle's and Kant's ethical theories, however--a surprising observation given that their approaches to ethics are commonly conceived as being diametrically opposed. The essays in this collection provide a comprehensive treatment of the highest good in Aristotle and Kant and show that, even though there are important differences in terms of content, there (...) are also important similarities in terms of the structural features of Aristotle's and Kant's value theories. By carefully analysing Aristotle's and Kant's theories of the highest good, a team of experts in the field shed light on their respective ethical theories and highlight the richness, complexity, and fruitfulness of the notion of the highest good. (shrink)

BackgroundHealthcare is permeated by phenomena of vulnerability and their ethical significance. Nonetheless, application of this concept in healthcare ethics today is largely confined to clinical research. Approaches that further elaborate the concept in order to make it suitable for healthcare as a whole thus deserve renewed attention.MethodsConceptual analysis.ResultsTaking up the task to make the concept of vulnerability suitable for healthcare ethics as a whole involves two challenges. Firstly, starting from the concept as it used in research ethics, a more detailed (...) characterization and systematization of the different realms of human abilities and the various ways in which these realms contain vulnerability is to be established. Secondly, at the same time, the sought-after concept of vulnerability should avoid picturing the relation between healthcare recipient and provider as a relation between a dependent individual in need and another individual capable of providing all the help necessary. An adequate concept of vulnerability should enable one to understand when and in which respects care providers may be vulnerable as well. Philosophical accounts of vulnerability can help to meet both of these challenges.ConclusionsPhilosophical accounts of vulnerability can help to make the concept of vulnerability suitable for healthcare ethics as a whole. They come with a price, though. While the ethical role of vulnerability in medical ethics usually is to signify states of affairs that are to be diminished or overcome, philosophical accounts introduce forms of vulnerability that are regarded as valuable. Further analyzing and systematizing forms and degrees of vulnerability thus comprises the task to distinguish between amounts and types of vulnerability that can count as valuable, and amounts and types of vulnerability that are to be alleviated. (shrink)

Healthcare is permeated by phenomena of vulnerability and their ethical significance. Nonetheless, application of this concept in healthcare ethics today is largely confined to clinical research. Approaches that further elaborate the concept in order to make it suitable for healthcare as a whole thus deserve renewed attention. Conceptual analysis. Taking up the task to make the concept of vulnerability suitable for healthcare ethics as a whole involves two challenges. Firstly, starting from the concept as it used in research ethics, a (...) more detailed characterization and systematization of the different realms of human abilities and the various ways in which these realms contain vulnerability is to be established. Secondly, at the same time, the sought-after concept of vulnerability should avoid picturing the relation between healthcare recipient and provider as a relation between a dependent individual in need and another individual capable of providing all the help necessary. An adequate concept of vulnerability should enable one to understand when and in which respects care providers may be vulnerable as well. Philosophical accounts of vulnerability can help to meet both of these challenges. Philosophical accounts of vulnerability can help to make the concept of vulnerability suitable for healthcare ethics as a whole. They come with a price, though. While the ethical role of vulnerability in medical ethics usually is to signify states of affairs that are to be diminished or overcome, philosophical accounts introduce forms of vulnerability that are regarded as valuable. Further analyzing and systematizing forms and degrees of vulnerability thus comprises the task to distinguish between amounts and types of vulnerability that can count as valuable, and amounts and types of vulnerability that are to be alleviated. (shrink)

This introductory chapter sets the stage for an engaging exploration of the multifaceted concept of proof in the philosophy of mathematical practice. As a fundamental pillar of mathematics, proof has long been a subject of intense scrutiny for mathematicians and philosophers alike. Traditionally, proofs have been perceived as rigorous and deductive arguments, and this analysis was directed towards the notion of formal proof. However, recent developments have challenged this traditional view, highlighting the dynamic and evolving nature of mathematical proofs. In (...) this section, we bring together diverse perspectives from leading scholars to delve into the philosophical significance and complexity of mathematical proof. (shrink)