Hostname: page-component-784d4fb959-r4kcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-16T11:02:12.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Kant and Fichte on Freedom and Citizens’ Assent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2025

Sofie Møller*
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Abstract

Kant argues that civic freedom amounts to being subject to laws to which citizens could have assented. Fichte conversely argues that personal freedom is only fully realized in a state of civil freedom and that citizens are only legitimately ruled by laws to which they have explicitly agreed. This paper shows how their differing accounts are rooted in a deeper disagreement about the relationship between transcendental and empirical freedom and the role empirical citizens’ assent (Beistimmung) plays in justifying civil legislation. The confrontation also shows why reading Kant as requiring citizens’ active assent may be problematic.

Information

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Kantian Review

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Byrd, B. Sharon, and Hruschka, Joachim. 2010. Kant’s Doctrine of Right. A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511712050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. 1971. Fichtes Werke. Edited by Immanuel Hermann Fichte. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. 2000. Foundations of Natural Right: According to the Principles of the Wissenschaftslehre. Edited by Neuhouser, Frederick and translated by Michael Baur (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. 2009. Fichte: Addresses to the German Nation. Edited by Moore, Gregory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Gottlieb, Gabriel. 2016. ‘Fichte’s imagined community and the problem of stability’. In Breazale, Daniel (ed.), Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation Reconsidered (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 175200).10.1515/9781438462561-010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Mike. 2023. ‘Does the Kantian state dominate?: Freedom and majoritarian rule’. Ratio, 36, 124–36.10.1111/rati.12366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2016. ‘The Twofold morality of Recht: once more unto the breach’. Kant-Studien, 107, 3463.10.1515/kant-2016-0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Stephen. 2022. ‘Kant on limits, boundaries, and the positive function of ideas’. European Journal of Philosophy, 30, 6478.10.1111/ejop.12652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Samuel. 2022. ‘Consent and the Mere means principle’. Journal of Value Inquiry, 58(3),119.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1999. Practical Philosophy. Edited and translated by Gregor, Mary J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Translated by Guyer, Paul and Matthews, Eric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9780511804656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersting, Wolfgang. 2001. ‘Die Unabhängigkeit des Rechts von der Moral (Einleitung)’. In Merle, Jean-Christophe (ed.), Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Grundlage des Naturrechts (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2138).10.1524/9783050050324.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. 1993. ‘The problematic status of gender-neutral language in the history of philosophy: the case of Kant’. Philosophical Forum, 25, 134–50.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. 2018. ‘Moral autonomy as political analogy: Self-legislation in Kant’s groundwork and the Feyerabend lectures on natural law’. In Stefano Bacin and Oliver Sensen (eds.), The Emergence of Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 158–75.10.1017/9781316863435.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd. 2013. ‘Positive und negative Freiheit bei Kant-Wie Begriffliche Konfusion auf Philosophi (ehistori) sche Abswege Fuhrt’. Jahrbuch fur Recht und Ethik, 21, 271.Google Scholar
Maus, Ingeborg. 2001. ‘Die Verfassung und ihre Garantie: das Ephorat (§§ 16, 17 und 21)’. In Merle, Jean-Christophe (ed.), Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Grundlage des Naturrechts (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 139–58).10.1524/9783050050324.139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maus, Ingeborg. 2015. Zur Aufklärung der Demokratietheorie. Erstausgabe. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Moyar, Dean. 2016. ‘Fichte’s organic unification: Recognition and the self-overcoming of social contract theory’. In Gottlieb, Gabriel (ed.), Fichte’s Foundations of Natural Right: A Critical Guide. Cambridge Critical Guides (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 218–38). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139939638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, Onora. 2015. Constructing Authorities: Reason, Politics, and Interpretation in Kant’s Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316337141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur. 2009. Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA/London, England: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674054516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 1976. ‘Tacit consent and political obligation’. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 5, 274–91.Google Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 1997. ‘Why the doctrine of right does not belong in the metaphysics of morals-on some basic distinctions in Kant’s moral philosophy’. JRE, 5, 205.Google Scholar