The Science of Right

by Immanuel Kant

The Science of Right has for its object the principles of all the laws which it is possible to promulgate by external legislation. Where there is such a legislation, it becomes, in actual application to it, a system of positive right and law; and he who is versed in the knowledge of this system is called a jurist or jurisconsult (jurisconsultus). A practical jurisconsult (jurisperitus), or a professional lawyer, is one who is skilled in the knowledge of positive external laws, and who can apply them to cases that may occur in experience. Such practical knowledge of positive right, and law, may be regarded as belonging to jurisprudence (jurisprudentia) in the original sense of the term.

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, Science, Law

104 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1790

About the author

Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century philosopher from Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He's regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe & of the late Enlightenment. His most important work is The Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics & epistemology, & highlights his own contribution to these areas. Other main works of his maturity are The Critique of Practical Reason, which is about ethics, & The Critique of Judgment, about esthetics & teleology.

Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality–which he concluded that it does–then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.

Reviews

[Théo d'Or]

Very difficult to rank Kant here, for several reasons. His moral theory is centered around universal principles, but I'II argue that moral values are quite subjective, and vary across different cultures. The idea of a universal code of ethics it's like saying that all cats that cross your path bring you bad luck. Or, it is well-known that only the black ones have this privilege. Moreover, Kant prioritizes moral duty over happiness. Bon sang, here K really lost me in a field of sunflowers, a dichotomy between duty and happiness is the thing I dreamed all my life. About moral responsibility, K's theory holds individuals fully responsible for their actions, regardless of circumstances, but he didn't say a word about poverty or mental illness, which might influence moral culpability. Seems that K has vague knowledge about empathy and compassion, which makes me love him 47 percent less. A moral framework should consider the emotional and affective dimensions rather than relying solely on rationality, nicht wahr, Herr Kant ?
I'II add that K's moral theory is based on a male-centric worldview, neglecting the experiences and perspectives of marginalized groups. He don't give a shit on the role of emotions in moral decision-making, seeing them as potentially clouding rational judgment.
One above the other, Kant's moral framework seems to me idealistic and disconnected from practical realities, his categorical imperative might be hard to apply in real world situations where conflicting ethical obligations arise.
In conclusion, let me be happy, Immanuel, and don't worry about duty. I planned this too, at bedtime, when there is more privacy.

[for-much-deliberation ...]

I have this e-book under the title, "The Philosophy of Law: An Exposition
of the Fundamental Principles of Jurisprudence as the Science of Right"...

[J.E. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kant is not the easiest philosopher to read, even in translation. But there are some interesting surprises here. Although writing in the eighteenth century, with some of the cultural biases we would expect (he takes it for granted that women are not full citizens), Kant makes a pretty strong case that seizing territory from indigenous peoples cannot be justified. He not only criticizes the taking of such lands by violence, but argues that it is also indefensible to take them by contract, if the contract in question takes advantage of what he terms the people's ignorance. Remember that he's writing this at a time when European empires were dispossessing peoples all over the world, yet Kant was not the only one to recognize, even at the time, that it was immoral.
Kant concludes The Science of Right by arguing that, even though perpetual peace may never be achievable by the human race, it is nonetheless our duty to strive for it, always, as if it were possible, because it is right.
This book is a good example of why we should continue to read a wide variety of thinkers "in the round," and consider them in conversation with one another across the ages, both good and bad.

[Dianna Caley · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first 3/4 of the book is simply a justification of property and it is based on the premise that individual property ownership is innate in us while communal behavior is an aberration that only makes sense when people begin banding together to protect their individual property rights. How do we know this is true? Kant offers no support as he believes the truth to be self evident an assumption which seems to be the pitfall of philosophy. He acknowledges the fragility of his thesis later in the book when he is talking about the goal of all nations and individuals as perpetual peace (defines as everyone respecting each other's property rights". He is forthright that the his premise that perpetual peace is the goal of all civilization cannot be proved, but then goes on to say that if the world would be nicer if it were true then we should act on the assumption that it is true. Being something of a fantasist myself I sympathize with this reasoning, but I wonder. If we can't prove something is true shouldn't we look for the answer and see how that informs our existence? Isn't that the true function of philosophy and the sciences? Does faith have a place outside of religion and love? I suppose the book does provoke a lot of questions and it's worth reading for that purpose alone as well as it's place as one of the first books setting forth a moral scheme based on capitalism.