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 say a right and the power to coerce are one thing — how is compulsion ever an exercise of freedom rather than its breach?
- A shipwrecked man shoves another off the only plank to save himself. No law can punish him, yet he is not blameless. How can both hold?
- A servant's yearly wage is paid in coin that lost value meanwhile, and no judge can help him. Why is he owed something the law cannot award?
- Telling someone something, true or false, counts among everyone's innate freedoms, since it is up to the listener whether to believe. Doesn't a lie wrong the person deceived?
- A man secretly wishes his neighbour's freedom were cut short but never lifts a finger against it. By your standard of right, has he done anything wrong?