Right as the Coexistence of Freedoms
Strip every appeal to happiness or welfare from the idea of a right — what single formula, resting on freedom alone, is left to build a whole law upon?
A right is the sum of the conditions under which one person's free choice can coexist with everyone else's under a single universal law. From that definition Kant derives the claim the rest of his legal philosophy leans on — that a right and the authority to compel are one thing, since coercion used to block another's blocking of freedom is itself an exercise of freedom, not a breach of it. And he draws the line his whole ethics turns on: law asks only that the outward act conform, while virtue asks why one acts, so the state may force what it can never make moral.
- freedom
- autonomy
- coercion
- equity
- ethics and law
- property
- strict right
Enter a dialogue
- You strip all appeal to welfare from right and rest it on freedom alone — can law really ignore whether people are better off?
- My freedom keeps colliding with my neighbour's — how does your single formula settle whose choice must yield?
- Defining right as freedoms coexisting under one law, what appeals to happiness must a lawmaker stop making?
- How does what the law may force from me differ from what only virtue can ask of me?
- You say a right and the power to coerce are one thing — how is compulsion ever an exercise of freedom rather than its breach?