The Ideal Character of the General Will and Popular Sovereignty in Kant

Marey, Macarena

doi:10.1515/kant-2018-4001

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thanks to a reviewer for recommending Pickering's work. 11 Although the general will is a central concept in Kant's political philosophy, its technicalities are tangential to my project; for discussion, see Flikschuh (2012), Marey (2018), andHoltman (2020: esp. 95-9).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Followability, Necessity, and Excuse: Interpreting Kant’s Penal Theory

Campbell

2024

Kantian rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Philosophers traditionally interpret Kant as a retributivist, but modern interpreters, with reference to Kant’s theory of justice and problematic passages, instead propose penal theories that mix retributive and deterrent features. Although these mixed penal theories are substantively compelling and capture the Kantian spirit, their dual aspects lead to a justificatory conflict that generates an apparent dilemma. To resolve this dilemma and clear the ground for these mixed theories, I will outline and reinterpret Kant’s penal theory by situating it in his broader moral and political philosophy. This move grounds the followability requirement, which is necessary to resolve the dilemma.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Followability, Necessity, and Excuse: Interpreting Kant’s Penal Theory

Campbell

2024

Kantian rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The necessity of the state might not even require the actual possibility of interference as it might be required rather by the nature of public laws which our external action must be subjected to(Friedrich, 2004; Gregory, forthcoming;Kleingeld, 2022). Here Kant is not concerned about establishing anyone's actual interference but only that persons can possibly interfere with me and so dominate me in a state of nature.10 In addition to Ripstein, seeByrd and Hruschka (2010);Hodgson (2010);Flikschuh (2012);Huber (2019);Pallikkathayil (2016) Marey (2018). points out some more specific ways in which Flikschuh misreads the connection between Kant and Hobbes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Kantian state dominate?: Freedom and majoritarian rule

Gregory

2023

Ratio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, scholars have criticized what they call the “Kantian‐Republican” thesis of freedom as non‐domination. The main complaint is that domination is unavoidable. This concern can be separated into the problem of state domination, which suggests that the state's intervening powers necessarily dominate its citizens, and the problem of majority domination, which suggests that the People necessarily dominate individual citizen as a result of the potential to form dominating majorities.

show abstract

“…For a good treatment of non‐state peoples in Kant and its meaning for Kant's anti‐colonialism that takes a different path from the one I transit here, see Stilz (). In Marey () I explain that when we talk about Kant's republic we are talking about legitimacy, not simply about which is the most suitable institutional design to achieve some end. In this sense, the distinction between forma regiminis and forma imperii in Kant, , p. 352 also provides solid evidence in support of my position.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Kant's popular sovereignty and cosmopolitanism

Marey

2020

Constellations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debates between cosmopolitan liberalism 1 and statism (broadly construed) continue to proliferate and ramify. Underneath their polymorphism and the longstanding dispute about which is to be the basic normative unit of international politics, human individuals or states, they all share a critical core, which inevitably poses questions concerning the role and place of democracy in the face of globalization. What these questions principally ask is exactly how the transnationalization of capital jeopardizes the concept of democracy, if and how democracy can be enhanced by some virtuous process of internationalization, and how and whether local and interlocal democracies can counteract the negative effects of globalization. But at the same time, many of the theoretical and practical difficulties in responding in morally and politically efficacious ways to many of the unjust phenomena of today's world order (where the imbalance of power between states is radical) are due to the unjustified conflation of the normative principle of popular sovereignty and the sheer factual, empirical assertion of state power by formal constitutional democracies. There is, therefore, a normative question conceptually prior to that of the role of democracy in the face of the negative effects of globalization: the status and function that the concept of popular sovereignty has vis-à-vis democracies and the sovereign nation-state within the state, and towards other states and political and economic transnational actors. This article intends to provide some initial reflections on this status by introducing an alternative reading of the modern political theory most cited in the philosophical debates on cosmopolitanism and international law: Kant's. 2 It is possible and desirable to construct a concept of popular sovereignty whose empirical use does not collapse into the mere empirical assertion of power by modern, post-Westphalian nation-states and formal democracies, that does not necessarily clash with international, transnational, and cosmopolitan political-juridical realms, and that is able to play normative roles in the context of globalization. A Kantian theory offers us the possibility of developing a normative notion of popular sovereignty 3 that satisfies these requisites for two basic reasons. First, it functions as a normative principle to regulate those practical contexts. For example, it would serve to distinguish critically intromissions against political autonomy, even when states formally agree to the terms of their international relations and of their dealings with international financial institutions. Second, it is not conceptually jeopardized by the desirable transformation of international and transnational practices into ambits of fairer interactions with norms neutralizing power asymmetries, or by the protection of the rights of refugees and migrants, insofar as it does not coincide with the declarative and territorial power of nation-states. [Correction added on 22 January 2020, after first online publication: removed "a...

show abstract

The Ideal Character of the General Will and Popular Sovereignty in Kant

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Followability, Necessity, and Excuse: Interpreting Kant’s Penal Theory

Followability, Necessity, and Excuse: Interpreting Kant’s Penal Theory

Does the Kantian state dominate?: Freedom and majoritarian rule

Kant's popular sovereignty and cosmopolitanism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About