The kantian concept of Citizenship
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.11595Keywords:
dignity, rights, citizenship, common senseAbstract
In the prologue to Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals Kant brings to notice the difference between a reflection on the Fundamental Principles of Morale and the idea of how to “apply” the Principle of Morality to the everyday life of humans. According to his own point of view, the question on how to implement Morale in practical life supposes the necessity of adopting the perspective of a Pragmatic Anthropology. In this sense, the object of this essay is to make a Pragmatic Reading of the Kantian concept of Citizenship, with which one can better understand his conviction that the political should be constructed on the basis of Morale: the respect for Human Dignity. This pragmatic point of view will enable me to clarify: a) why Kant thinks that the grave difficulties of Politics reside in the task of knowing and being able to establish the necessary measures to guaranty the respect for Fundamental Rights, and b) in what manner the Kantian concept of Citizenship lays the foundations of the idea of Mutual Recognizance of Rights and Obligations. Due to this I divide the essay in three parts: 1) The ideas of Human Rights and Citizen Rights, and the concept of Cosmopolitan Right. 2) The concept of Citizenship in the light of his concept of a Republican State; and 3) how the notion of Citizenship was conceived by Kant for simple people, with a Common Sense.
Downloads
References
ARENDT, H. (1992). Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
ARENDT, H. (1999a). Orígenes del totalitarismo II. Madrid: Alianza.
ARENDT, H. (1999b). Orígenes del totalitarismo III. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
BENHABIB, S. (2006). Hospitality, Sovereignty, and Democratic Iterarions. En S. Benhabib, Another Cosmopolitanism (Berkeley Tanner Lectures) (págs. 147-186). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183221.003.0007
BENHABIB, S. (2004). Los derechos de los otros. Extranjeros, residentes y ciudadanos. Barcelona: Gedisa.
BLOOM, A. (1987). The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
GUYER, P. (2008). Knowledge, Reason and Taste: Kant’s Response to Hume. Princenton: Princenton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400824472
HABERMAS, J. (1996). Kants Idee des ewigen Friedens - aus dem historischen Abstand von zweihundert Jahren. En M. Lutz-Bahcmann, & J. Bohman (Edits.), Frieden durch Recht. Kants Friedensidee und das Problem einer neuen Weltordnung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/0023-4834-1995-3-293
KANT, I. (1977). Werke in zwölf Bänden. (W. Weischedel, Ed.) Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
KORSGAARD, C. (1996). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174503
LOCKE, J. (2003). Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. (I. Shapiro, Ed.) Yale: Yale University Press.
MARX, K. (2007). On the Jewish Question. En M. Ishay (Ed.), The Human Rights Reader. Major Political Essays, Speeches, and Documents from Ancient Times to the Present (págs. 263-271). New York/London: Rotuledge.
PATON, H. J. (1948). Categorical Imperative. A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.
SCHILPP, P. A. (1966). La ética precrítica de Kant. México: Centro de Estudios Filosóficos.
STRAUSS, L. (2006). La filosofía política de Hobbes. Su fundamento y su génesis. Bs. As.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
TUGENDHAT, E. (2001). ¿Cómo debemos entender la moral? En E. Tugendhat, Problemas. Barcelona: Gedisa.
TUGENDHAT, E. (2008). El origen de la igualdad normativa. En E. Tugendhat, Antropología en vez de metafísica (págs. 115-138). Barcelona: Gedisa.
TUGENDHAT, E. (1992). Liberalism, Liberty and the Issue of Economic Human Rights. En E. TUGENDHAT, Philosophische Aufsätze. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
WOOD, A. (2008). Kantian Ethics. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2010 Lucy Carrillo Castillo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercia-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal;
5. Authors are permitted, and Estudios de Filosofía promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Estudios de Filosofía's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Estudios de Filosofía.
