Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy

by Arthur Ripstein

In this masterful work, both an illumination of Kant’s thought and an important contribution to contemporary legal and political theory, Arthur Ripstein gives a comprehensive yet accessible account of Kant’s political philosophy. Ripstein shows that Kant’s thought is organized around two central first, that legal institutions are not simply responses to human limitations or circumstances; indeed the requirements of justice can be articulated without recourse to views about human inclinations and vulnerabilities. Second, Kant argues for a distinctive moral principle, which restricts the legitimate use of force to the creation of a system of equal freedom. Ripstein’s description of the unity and philosophical plausibility of this dimension of Kant’s thought will be a revelation to political and legal scholars.

In addition to providing a clear and coherent statement of the most misunderstood of Kant’s ideas, Ripstein also shows that Kant’s views remain conceptually powerful and morally appealing today. Ripstein defends the idea of equal freedom by examining several substantive areas of law―private rights, constitutional law, police powers, and punishment―and by demonstrating the compelling advantages of the Kantian framework over competing approaches.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Law

416 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[John Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Force and Freedom is a book, that, at its best, combines Kantian conceptions of political justice with our current legal and political framework in an interesting and easy-to-read manner.

I think Kant is so tied to his principles of moral philosophy to many that it's easy to forget about how important his political philosophy is. While people are strictly bound by the categorical imperative, Kant's conception of the omnilateral will allows governments different rights and freedoms in a way that it avoids the problems inherent to the state of nature.

The second half of the book is where Ripstein's connections of this simple principle to modern political theory really come through. Specifically, his thoughts on authoritarian governments (governments not acting consistent to the omnilateral will) and how they can justify revolutions is a clear place where he disagrees with the ImMANuel himself to assert a more rational and easily accepted political framework.

Where the book is not so hot is in its clarity and concision. It's a book that gets boring at many different places, especially in his discussion of private rights in the first three chapters.

Still, it's a worthy read for anyone interested in Kant's political theory. 3.5/5.

[Ft. Sheridan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uses Kantian political philosophy to argue that public roads are necessary for justice.

[Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a great book. Ripstein does a great job of both providing an exposition of Kant's Rechtslehre as well as bringing it into conversation with contemporary legal philosophy. I have only read fragments of Rechtslehre itself so I can't comment on textual accuracy, but to me, Ripstein provides a compelling case for Kant's formal political philosophy. Of additional value is the appendix which focuses on the relation between Kant's Critique and ethics and how they lend support to the Rechtslehre, providing an incentive for those who buy into Kantian ethics (of which I am sympathetic) to buy into the Rechtslehre.

The main shortcomings of the book are I think the lack of imagination and conversation with contemporary political philosophy. Distributive justice is obviously an important topic, both in the real world and in political philosophy, and Ripstein/Kant has very little to say about it. If this is a feature of the theory, it is obviously a negative, but it may just be a feature of Ripstein's presentation. I take Rawls to somewhat pick up on this conversation, specifically in his work on public reason. This book made me have a much greater appreciation for the Rawlsian project, as it outlines some of the reasoning going on implicitly in the Rawlsian architecture.

A further shortcoming is how long-winded Ripstein is. While incredibly informative, several chapters gave me the feeling of being beaten over the head with the Rechtslehre. The same points were made continuously and the signposting seemed, to me, to be excessive. At some point it seems like writers should trust the reader to be able to make connections, because the literary equivalent of being beaten with a book is not very much fun.

Still, this book is great and well-worth reading, as a piece of history of philosophy, contemporary philosophy, and a companion to understanding some theoretical assumptions of modern positions like Rawlsian liberalism.

[Mimi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was introduced to this nonfiction book during my time as a high school debater. I decided to read this book because I’m interested in the philosophical views of Immanuel Kant. In this book, Ripstein summarizes Kant’s arguments about maintaining a system of equal freedoms among the people of a community. Ripstein also applies Kant’s philosophy to the modern day legal and political systems.

I particularly enjoyed the section in the book about the government’s responsibility to the people. Kant outlines that there must be an omnilateral will in place in order to allow a system of equal freedoms to citizens and in order to protect them from the state of nature. Ripstein applies this to oppressive and barbaric governments by saying that if the government is not allowing this system of equal freedoms, a revolution is warranted. Ripstein says this revolution, although leaving its citizens in the state of nature, is overall better for the freedoms of its citizens. It is this kind of analysis by Ripstein of Kant’s philosophy and application into the modern world that brings clarity to the Kant’s ethics.

While I don’t think this book would be of interest to the average reader, I think anyone interested in philosophy and morality should read this book. It provides modern day applications of innate philosophical concepts and brings clarity to Kant’s philosophical views. I think that the book is more aimed for college students and I think an introduction to Kant and his philosophies before reading the book would be beneficial.

Since this book’s material is difficult very specific, I would recommend reading the first part of the book, which as an analysis and summary of Kant’s original ethics. For those further interested in legal applications should read the remainder of the book as well.

[Andy Lamey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Heavy slogging at times, but an informed and thought provoking presentation of Kant's views on the state of nature, the justification of government, property rights and related matters. Of all things, a chapter on why publicly maintained roads are a necessary condition of individual freedom was especially interesting. As Ripstein notes, thinkers like Ronald Dworkin and Charles Taylor have argued that traffic laws are justified by balancing people's interests. Kant on the other hand is concerned with the institutional requirement that will allow human persons to live in a condition of equal freedom, where freedom is understood as not being subordinate to the will of another. This generates a need for roads and other public spaces that are not under the control of particular individual, but rather the state, which rules in the name of upholding equal freedom.

Another high point was Ripstein's discussion of Kant's view on revolution. Kant is famous for saying there is no right to revolution, which seems hard to accept in cases like Nazi Germany. Ripstein argues that according to Kant's theory, Nazi Germany was so extremely unjust that it not have the authority of a state. It rather existed in a condition of barbarism, and so the prohibition on revolution did not apply. As he writes, "Kant’s argument thus leaves conceptual space for the claim that the world’s most horrible regimes are in a state of nature, so that those to whom they do violence are not only entitled but required to use force if they can to bring them into a rightful condition." I'm not sure if I agree with Ripstein's interpretation on this, but it's thought-provoking nonetheless and informed by a deep engagement with Kant's work.

[Chupeng Gui · Rating 5 out of 5]

Over the past couple of months, I was looking for an article or book that would have views of Kant on policies. I mainly started to read this book because I am on my high school's LD debate team, and this book would teach me the philosophical and moral views of Kant.

The book summarizes the main views of Kant; there are many things, such as we have to grant everyone freedom, we need the omnilateral will to enforce different rights, and some general views on Kantian ethics. The part that I am mainly interested in is the part about the state of dependency. Ripstein talks about how depending on private charity is bad because the charity can choose to favor one or not; in other words, their choices depend on the one who they depend on, which means that they are not ends of themselves. This is inconsistent with Kant's ethical view because he thinks that everyone deserves free will and that humans are intrinsically valuable.

I don't think general readers would be really interested in reading this book, but people who are into philosophy, especially Kantian ethics, should read this. Also, high school debaters who are interested in reading philosophical arguments like Kant should read specific parts of this book; there are many good arguments that Ripstein makes. Generally, this book might need some basic background knowledge before starting.

[Shahdah Mahhouk · Rating 5 out of 5]

very informative and enjoyable to read