ABSTRACT
So much for style. Now for substance. With little ado, Kant begins the “Doctrine of Right” with the statements that “Right is the sum of the conditions under which the choice of one can be united with the choice of another in accordance with a universal law of freedom” (MM, Doctrine of Right, Introduction §B, 6:230). Since the choices of different agents can be incompatible with each other only when they are acted upon, the compatibility of choices to which this definition refers is actually the compatibility of freely chosen actions with each other. So Kant next states the “universal principle of right” thus: “Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal law” (§C, 6:230). The derivation of this principle from the universal value of humanity as such is obvious if humanity is understood as the freedom to both choose and pursue ends: the principle says that each person must be allowed as much freedom to pursue her own ends as is compatible with everyone else having as much freedom as they can to pursue their ends.2 The actions that are prohibited by the universal principle of right are free actions by one person that would deprive others of a similar degree of freedom. For example, taking control of an external object can be consistent with this principle if so doing leaves others equally free to take control of relevantly similar objects as well; committing homicide is typically not consistent with this principle because it is a free action on the part of one person that deprives another of his freedom. (Homicide in self-defense may be the atypical exception to this rule precisely because the freedom of the agent who commits such an act has already been threatened by the attack of the other.) The principle of right can also be understood as the principle that each person must have the maximal sphere of freedom consistent with the similarly maximal freedom of everyone else. It is not a maximizing principle like the classical utilitarian principle “greatest happiness for the greatest number,” however, for that principle is indifferent to equality in the distribution of happiness among persons, while Kant’s principle calls for equally maximal spheres of freedom for all.
