Affiliation:
1. Aberystwyth UniversityUK
Abstract
Both Hobbes and Kant tackle the issue of natural right in a radical and controversial way. They both present systematic, secular theories of natural law in a highly religious age. Whereas Hobbes transforms natural right by placing the rational individual bent on self-preservation at the centre of political philosophy, Kant transforms natural right by putting the metaphysical presuppositions of his critical philosophy at the heart of his reasoning on politics. Neither attempts to provide an orthodox view of natural right as directly or indirectly derived from God’s commands, although subsequent to their philosophical deduction as natural rights or laws both do not entirely repudiate the idea that these rights or laws can be portrayed as having divine support.
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,History,Philosophy
Cited by
18 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
1. Kant’s Hylomorphic Formulation of Right and the Necessity of the State;Kant-Studien;2023-09-07
2. Property and the Will: Kant and Achenwall on Ownership Rights;Kantian Review;2023-05-05
3. Index;Kant's Tribunal of Reason;2020-03-31
4. Bibliography;Kant's Tribunal of Reason;2020-03-31
5. Conclusion;Kant's Tribunal of Reason;2020-03-31