The Relation between Right and Morality in Kant’s Philosophy: Doctrine of Dependence

Undoubtedly, Kant was interested in philosophy of law, even before proposing his critical philosophy. But, he delivered his fully-fledged philosophy of right in “Metaphysics of Morals”. Regarding the review and analysis of the book, probably the most complicated issue discussed by Kant specialists is the relation between right and morality. The structure of the book, some of its ambiguous passages and Kant’s prior positions about philosophy of morals in “Critique of Practical Reason” and “Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals” have mystified the real idea of Kant as for this relation. According to the belief that the “strict right” implicates the (moral) ought or not, one can categorize Kant specialists into two main groups: defendants of dependence or believers on independence doctrine. The first school of thought is the more popular and more conforming to the structure of “Metaphysics of Morals”. In order to justify the doctrine, Höffe has proposed the general categorical imperative, Guyer and Kersting freedom and Pauer-Studer the kingdom of ends formula as the general foundation of Kant’s moral philosophy which should include both domains of ethics and Law. Moreover, Sorin Baiasu has sought to refute Willaschek’s critiques, as the most powerful one on the doctrine of dependence, by distinguishing between subjective and objective validity of legal norms. Despite all these efforts, it does not seem that the doctrine is fully successful. The essay is designed to make the Persian speaking community familiar with these efforts.