先天权利、不确定性和官方自由裁量权:康德主义者的困惑

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Paul Garofalo
{"title":"先天权利、不确定性和官方自由裁量权:康德主义者的困惑","authors":"Paul Garofalo","doi":"10.1007/s10982-023-09483-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper poses a puzzle for contemporary Kantian political philosophy. Kantian political philosophers hold that the state’s purpose is to secure the conditions for people’s innate right to equal freedom, while at the same time claiming that innate right does not give a determinate set of conditions that the state is to bring about. Officials, then, have to make decisions in cases where the considerations of innate right provide no further guidance. I argue that, intuitively, in such cases there are (i) some further considerations that officials may appeal to and (ii) some further considerations that officials may not appeal to in order to decide among the options consistent with people’s innate right and then raise difficulties for the ability of current Kantian accounts to explain how they can accept both (i) and (ii). I conclude by suggesting one potential path forward for Kantians to address this puzzle.","PeriodicalId":51702,"journal":{"name":"Law and Philosophy","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Innate right, indeterminacy, and official discretion: A puzzle for Kantians\",\"authors\":\"Paul Garofalo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10982-023-09483-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper poses a puzzle for contemporary Kantian political philosophy. Kantian political philosophers hold that the state’s purpose is to secure the conditions for people’s innate right to equal freedom, while at the same time claiming that innate right does not give a determinate set of conditions that the state is to bring about. Officials, then, have to make decisions in cases where the considerations of innate right provide no further guidance. I argue that, intuitively, in such cases there are (i) some further considerations that officials may appeal to and (ii) some further considerations that officials may not appeal to in order to decide among the options consistent with people’s innate right and then raise difficulties for the ability of current Kantian accounts to explain how they can accept both (i) and (ii). I conclude by suggesting one potential path forward for Kantians to address this puzzle.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-023-09483-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-023-09483-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文对当代康德政治哲学提出了一个困惑。康德主义的政治哲学家认为,国家的目的是确保人们享有平等自由的先天权利的条件,同时又声称先天权利并没有给国家带来的一套确定的条件。因此,官员们必须在对先天权利的考虑无法提供进一步指导的情况下做出决定。我认为,从直觉上讲,在这种情况下,有(I)官员可能会考虑的一些进一步的考虑,以及(ii)官员可能不会考虑的一些进一步的考虑,以便在符合人们天生权利的选项中做出决定,然后为当前康德主义的描述解释他们如何接受(I)和(ii)的能力提出困难。最后,我为康德主义者提出了解决这个难题的一条潜在的前进道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Innate right, indeterminacy, and official discretion: A puzzle for Kantians
Abstract This paper poses a puzzle for contemporary Kantian political philosophy. Kantian political philosophers hold that the state’s purpose is to secure the conditions for people’s innate right to equal freedom, while at the same time claiming that innate right does not give a determinate set of conditions that the state is to bring about. Officials, then, have to make decisions in cases where the considerations of innate right provide no further guidance. I argue that, intuitively, in such cases there are (i) some further considerations that officials may appeal to and (ii) some further considerations that officials may not appeal to in order to decide among the options consistent with people’s innate right and then raise difficulties for the ability of current Kantian accounts to explain how they can accept both (i) and (ii). I conclude by suggesting one potential path forward for Kantians to address this puzzle.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Law and Philosophy
Law and Philosophy Multiple-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Law and Philosophy is a forum for the publication of work in law and philosophy which is of common interest to members of the two disciplines of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. It is open to all approaches in both fields and to work in any of the major legal traditions - common law, civil law, or the socialist tradition. The editors of Law and Philosophy encourage papers which exhibit philosophical reflection on the law informed by a knowledge of the law, and legal analysis informed by philosophical methods and principles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信