Affiliation:
1. Brandeis University Department of Philosophy 415 South Street, MA 02453 Waltham USA
Abstract
Abstract
Kant makes and elaborates upon a distinction between active citizenship and passive citizenship. Active citizens enjoy the right to vote and rights of political participation generally. Passive citizens do not, though they still enjoy the protection of the law as citizens. Kant’s examples have left commentators puzzling over how these distinctions follow from his stated rationale or justification for active citizenship, namely, that active citizens possess a kind of political and economic self-sufficiency. This essay focuses on one subset passive citizenry – that of traveling blacksmiths, barbers, and day laborers in order to examine Kant’s distinctions. I argue that these examples show that Kant’s concerns regarding dependence are, at least in some cases, pragmatic rather than political.
Reference17 articles.
1. Benson, Paul (1991), “Autonomy and Oppressive Socialization”, in: Social Theory and Practice 84, 385–408.
2. Byrd, B. Sharon and Hruschka, Joachim (2010), Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. Cambridge.
3. Byrd, Sharon (2002), “Kant’s Theory of Contract”, in: Kant’s ‘Metaphysics of Morals’: Interpretative Essays. Ed. Mark Timmons. Oxford, 111–131.
4. Cholbi, Michael (2002), “A Felon’s Right to Vote”, in: Law and Philosophy 21, 543–564.
5. Cudd, Anne (2006), Analyzing Oppression. New York.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献