On the Kantian distinction between Ethics and Right: Linearity and Mediation

Riferimenti bibliografici

Bacin, S. (2016), “«Only one obligation»: Kant on the Distinction and the Normative Continuity of Ethics and Right”, Studi Kantiani, 29, no.1, pp. 77–90.

Baiasu, S. (2016), “Rights’ Complex Relation to Ethics in Kant: The Limits of Independentism”, Kant-Studien, 107, no.1, pp. 2–33.

Beck, L. W., (1960), A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Boot, E., (2017), “Kant and the In(ter)dependence of Right and Virtue”, Ethic@. An International Journal for Moral Philosophy, 16, no. 3, pp. 395-422.

Cummiskey, D., (1990), “Kantian consequentialism”, Ethics, 100, no. 3, pp. 586–615. Goyard-Fabre, S., (2004), Philosophie critique et raison juridique, PUF, Paris.

Goyard-Fabre, S., (1996), La philosophie du droit de Kant, Vrin, Paris.

Guyer, P., (2002), “Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right” In: M. Timmons (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals. Interpretative Essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23–64.

Habermas, J., (1996), Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Höffe, O., (2001), »Königliche Völker« - Zu Kants kosmopolitischer Rechts- und Friedenstheorie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

Höffe, O., (1990), Kategorische Rechtsprinzipien. Ein Kontrapunkt der Moderne, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

Höffe, O., (1989), “Kant’s Principle of Justice as Categorical Imperative of Law”. In: Y. Yirmiyahu (ed.), Kant’s Practical Philosophy Reconsidered.

Seventh Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter, , , pp. 149–167.

Höffe, O., (1983), Immanuel Kant, Beck, München.

Kant, I., (2015), Critique of Practical Reason. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor.

Revisited edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant, I., (1998a), Groundwork for The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant, I., (1998b), Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant, I., (1997), Lectures on Ethics. Translated and edited by P. Heath, J. B. Schneewind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant, I., (1996), The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ludwig, B., (2002), “Whence Public Right? The Role of Theoretical and Practical Reason in Kant’s Doctrine of Right”, In: M. Timmons (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals. Interpretative Essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 159–184.

Ludwig, B., (19982) (1986), “Einleitung”, in B. Ludwig (ed.), Immanuel Kant: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre. Metaphysik der Sitten. Erster Teil., Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg, pp. xiii–xxxvi.

Moran, K., (2017), “

–329.

Munzel, G. F., (1999), Kant’s Conception of Moral Character. The “Critical” Link of Morality, Anthropology and reflective Judgement, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Lockhart, J. R., (2017), “Kant on the Motive of (imperfect) Duties”, Inquiry, 60, no. 6, pp. 1–41.

Pauer Studer, H., (2016), “A community of rational beings: 159.

– –171.

Dinstinction between Internal and External Freedom”, Kant Studien, 107, no. 1, pp. 125

Kant's Realm of Ends and the

Pirni, A., (2020), “Le perenni ‘forzi motrici’ della filosofia pratica kantiana. Discutendo di

un recente contributo di Otfried Höffe”, Studi Kantiani, 33, no. 1, pp. 163

Pirni, A., (2006), Kant filosofo della comunità. ETS, Pisa.

Pirni, A., (2005), Filosofia pratica e sfera pubblica: percorsi a confronto. Höffe, Geertz,

O’Neill, Gadamer, Taylor, Diabasis, Reggio Emilia.

Ponchio, A., (2011), Etica e diritto in Kant. Un’interpretazione complessiva della morale

kantiana, ETS, Pisa.

Potter, N. (2002), “Duties to onelself, Motivational Internalism, and Self-deception in Kant’s Ethics”, In M. Timmons (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 371–389.

Ripstein, A. (2009), Force and Freedom. Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Willascheck, M., (2012), “The Non-Derivability of Kantian Right from the Categorical Imperative: A Response to Nance”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 20, pp. 557–564.

Willascheck, M., (2009), “Right and Coercion: Can Kant’s Conception of Right be Derived from his Moral Theory?”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 17, pp. 49–70.

Willascheck, M., (2002), “Which imperatives for Right? On the Non-Prescriptive Character of Juridical Laws in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals”, In M. Timmons (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 65-88.

Willascheck, M., (1997), “Why the Doctrine of Right does not belong in the Metaphysics of Morals”, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik, 5, pp. 205–227.

Wolff, C., (1976) [1720]. “Vernüfftige Gedancken von der Menschen Thun und Lassen, zu Beförderung ihrer Glückseligkeit”, In: C. Wolff, Gesammelte Werke, hg. von J. École, J.E. Hoffmann, M. Thomann, H.V. Arndt. Hildesheim, Olms, New York, Vol. IV, I.

Wood, A., (2002), “The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy”. In M. Timmons (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–22.