A synthesis of Kantian ethics and Rousseauvian General Will in justifying the moral ground of political laws

Abstract

AbstractThis article explores the Kantian and Rousseauvian solutions to the conflict between autonomy and authority. First, I discuss how the categorical imperatives (CI) are the supreme source of the legitimate authority of a limited number of political laws. By extending the synthetic a priori nature of the CI, I demonstrate how Rousseau’s General Will (GW) can justify political laws in a broader sense. I also refer to the theory of H.L.A. Hart and John Rawls to show that all political laws are binding if they are within the limits of injustice and have some moral foundation. I discussed the limits of authority of on debatable laws such as banning abortion. I analyzed the possibility of GW by using Condorcet’s theorem. I conclude that GW cannot fully justify political laws based on majoritarian direct democracy, owing to problematic assumptions, although it may be an improvement to the current legislative procedure of the U.S.