康德对私人财产的宣战

S. Klar
{"title":"康德对私人财产的宣战","authors":"S. Klar","doi":"10.1515/zksp-2015-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In paragraphs 1 to 17 of the Rechtslehre (1797) Kant wants to proof that private property can be justified reasonably. He wants to demonstrate that each thing may be and may become private property, i. e. that it is allowed to exclude all others of their use – and the criterion for this being the moral respectively legal law. A detailed analysis of Kant’s “deduction” will show that it fails: The possession or appropriation of each object of the free will as private property is (according to Kantian terms) unreasonable and unlawful, because it contradicts the categorical imperative respectively the rational law. The Kantian right of ownership is not the expression of reasonable social relations, but justifies classstructures. Consequently, there is no duty (in Kant’s sense) to respect civil societies based on private ownership.","PeriodicalId":250691,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kants Begründung des Privateigentums und das Scheitern der Deduktion\",\"authors\":\"S. Klar\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/zksp-2015-0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In paragraphs 1 to 17 of the Rechtslehre (1797) Kant wants to proof that private property can be justified reasonably. He wants to demonstrate that each thing may be and may become private property, i. e. that it is allowed to exclude all others of their use – and the criterion for this being the moral respectively legal law. A detailed analysis of Kant’s “deduction” will show that it fails: The possession or appropriation of each object of the free will as private property is (according to Kantian terms) unreasonable and unlawful, because it contradicts the categorical imperative respectively the rational law. The Kantian right of ownership is not the expression of reasonable social relations, but justifies classstructures. Consequently, there is no duty (in Kant’s sense) to respect civil societies based on private ownership.\",\"PeriodicalId\":250691,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/zksp-2015-0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zksp-2015-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在《法理》(1797)的第1至17段中,康德想要证明私有财产是合理的。他想要证明,每一件东西都可能是,也可能成为私有财产,也就是说,它可以排除其他所有人对它们的使用,而这一标准分别是道德法律。仔细分析康德的“演绎”就会发现它是失败的:按照康德的说法,把自由意志的每一个客体作为私有财产占有或占有是不合理和不合法的,因为它分别与绝对命令和理性法则相矛盾。康德的所有权不是合理的社会关系的表达,而是为阶级结构辩护。因此,没有义务(在康德的意义上)尊重以私有制为基础的公民社会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Kants Begründung des Privateigentums und das Scheitern der Deduktion
In paragraphs 1 to 17 of the Rechtslehre (1797) Kant wants to proof that private property can be justified reasonably. He wants to demonstrate that each thing may be and may become private property, i. e. that it is allowed to exclude all others of their use – and the criterion for this being the moral respectively legal law. A detailed analysis of Kant’s “deduction” will show that it fails: The possession or appropriation of each object of the free will as private property is (according to Kantian terms) unreasonable and unlawful, because it contradicts the categorical imperative respectively the rational law. The Kantian right of ownership is not the expression of reasonable social relations, but justifies classstructures. Consequently, there is no duty (in Kant’s sense) to respect civil societies based on private ownership.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Die Destruktion der Gesellschaftstheorie: Ernesto Laclaus und Chantal Mouffes Versuch einer nicht-essentialistischen Politischen Philosophie Ohne Form kein Inhalt Politics contra the functionalisation of man – Hannah Arendt’s problematic investigation of ideology and labour Between conflict and consensus: Why democracy needs conflicts and why communities should delimit their intensity Die „letzte Sinnlosigkeit“
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1