The Relation between Right and Morality in Kant's Philosophy: Doctrine of Independence

Kant’s theory of right is one of the most significant theories, which distinguishes between right and morality by giving pivotal role to the concept of freedom concerning the definition of “strict right” and removing the concepts of “perfection” and “happiness” from it. However, his emphasis on the Metaphysics of morals distinguishes his position from positivism, leading to some challenging discussions about the relation of morality and right. Accordingly, this makes the coherent interpretation of the theory impossible. Considering the concept of (moral) obligation as a core concept of Kant’s metaphysics of morals, we can categorize Kant specialists into two main groups: a) The dependentists, who believe that the strict right implies the concept of obligation and b) independentists who think otherwise. Amongst second groups, three thinkers are most famous: Ebbinghaus, one of the pioneers of the theory; Allen Wood, a radical American philosopher and Marcus Willaschek, who suggests the most sophisticated version of theory by proposing the idea of the paradox of juridical imperatives. Furthermore, Willaschek makes an attempt to analyze the concept of coercion, impossibility of derivation of coercion from categorical imperative and impossibility of conflict between Wilkür and Wille in Kant’s theory of right in order to prove his interpretation. The present essay aims to introduce the independence doctrine, especially willaschek’s interpretation, to Iranian scholars.