Paul Guyer

Kant claims that the fundamental principle of morality is given by pure reason itself. Many have interpreted Kant to derive this principle from a conception of pure practical reason. But Kant maintained that there is only one faculty of reason, although with both theoretical and practical applications. This Element shows how Kant attempted to derive the fundamental principle and goal of morality from the general principles of reason as such, defined by the principles of non-contradiction and sufficient reason and the ideal of systematicity.

We all know what Kant means by autonomy: “the property of the will by which it is a law to itself ” , or, since any law must be universal, the condition of an agent who is “subject only to laws given by himself but still universal” . Or do we know what Kant means by autonomy? There are a number of questions here. First, Kant's initial definition of autonomy itself raises the question of why the property of the will being a law to itself should be equivalent to its independence from any property of objects of volition. It is also natural to ask, how does autonomy as Kant conceives it relate to more familiar notions of freedom. For example, consider Locke's conception of freedom as the condition of a person “to think, or not to think; to move, or not to move, according to the preference or direction of his own mind,” rather than according to the preference or direction of any other person. What is the relation between autonomy and this traditional conception of freedom as the liberty of an agent? And what is the relation of autonomy to the traditional conception of freedom of the will; that is, the condition that obtains, as G. E

Kant is often portrayed as the author of a rigid system of ethics in which adherence to a formal and universal principle of morality - the famous categorical imperative - is an end itself, and any concern for human goals and happiness a strictly secondary and subordinate matter. Such a theory seems to suit perfectly rational beings but not human beings. The twelve essays in this collection by one of the world's preeminent Kant scholars argue for a radically different account of Kant's ethics. They explore an interpretation of the moral philosophy according to which freedom is the fundamental end of human action, but an end that can only be preserved and promoted by adherence to moral law. By radically revising the traditional interpretation of Kant's moral and political philosophy and by showing how Kant's coherent liberalism can guide us in current debates, Paul Guyer will find an audience across moral and political philosophy, intellectual history, and political science.

Kant on Laws is a collection of papers that Eric Watkins published from 1997 to 2018, "lightly rewritten," as he says, and accompanied with a new Introduction that states the general thesis that Kant has a univocal conception of law that applies to both laws of nature and the moral law. "Kant's most generic conception of law… includes two essential elements: necessity and the act of a spontaneous faculty whose legislative authority prescribes that necessity to a specific domain through an appropriate act". These conditions are satisfied by both laws of nature and the moral law. They differ, however, in that laws of nature apply ultimately to objects that are given to us through...

Is the refutation of scepticism a central objective for Kant? Some commentators have denied that the refutation of either theoretical or moral scepticism was central to Kant's concerns. Thus, in his recent book Kant and the Fate of Autonomy, Karl Ameriks rejects 'taking Kant to be basically a respondent to the skeptic'. According to Ameriks, who here has Kant's theoretical philosophy in mind,What Kant goes on to propose is that, instead of focusing on trying to establish with certainty – against skepticism – that the objects of common sense exist, let alone that they have philosophical dominance, or, in contrast, on explaining that it is only the theoretical discoveries of science that determine what is objective, one can rather work primarily to determine a positive and balanced philosophical relation between the distinct frameworks of our manifest and scientific images

Contemporary liberalism, which prescribes state regulation of property for purposes of welfare but proscribes state regulation of the expression of thought and conscience, may seem inherently paradoxical. Kant's analysis of property, however, shows that political liberalism is coherent and indeed necessitated by Kantian moral principles. For property rights are constituted by interpersonal agreement to defer to an owner's claim to an object; and if such agreement is to be rightfully, that is, freely obtained, then it can only be obtained under conditions of fairness that would make it rational for all affected by the claim to so defer, and can rightfully be restricted to such conditions by political means. Freedom of thought and expression, however, has no inherent dependence on the agreement of others, and thus gives rise to no right for the state to regulate it except in marginal cases which can be analyzed as ordinary action rather than thought and its expression. Fundamental differences in ontology thus give rise to fundamental differences in the rightful use of political regulation. Der heutige Liberalismus, der einerseits die staatliche Regulierung des Eigentums für Zwecke der Wohlfahrt fordert, andererseits die staatliche Regulierung des Ausdrucks von Gedanken und Gewissen verbieten möchte, könnte schon an sich selbst betrachtet als paradox erscheinen. Kants Deutung des Eigentums zeigt jedoch, daß der politische Liberalismus kohärent ist und aus Kants moralischen Prinzipien auch tatsächlich folgt. Eigentumsrechte entstehen aus der Übereinkunft zwischen Personen, die Ansprüche, die Eigentümer auf ihre Sachen erheben, auch anzuerkennen. Wenn eine derartige Übereinkunft rechtmäßig und also frei zustandekommen soll, kann sie nur unter der Bedingung der Fairneß zustandekommen, die es für alle Betroffenen als vernünftig erscheinen läßt, die fraglichen Eigentumsansprüche anzuerkennen. Deshalb kann die Übereinkunft auch durch politische Mittel auf die Bedingung der Fairneß eingeschränkt werden. Die Freiheit der Gedanken und des Ausdrucks von Gedanken dagegen steht in keiner inneren Abhängigkeit von der Zustimmung anderer, und das bedeutet, daß der Staat kein Recht hat, sie zu regulieren, außer in Randbereichen, in denen gewisse Äußerungen eher als Handlungen im gewöhnlichen Sinne denn als Ausdruck von Gedanken eingestuft werden können. Grundsätzliche Unterschiede in der Ontologie führen so zu grundsätzlichen Unterschieden im rechtmäßigen Gebrauch politischer Regulierung