Abstract
Many social economists endorse the ethics of Immanuel Kant, specifically his emphasis on the dignity of humanity and the equal respect due all persons. Based on these tenets, Kant mandates a social outlook in which concern for others, characterized by negative duties of respect and positive duties of beneficence, are broadly required of all rational agents. However, some of the positions that social economists derive from Kantian dignity actually violate it, such as support for a welfare state and opposition to the institution of wage employment. I will show that both of these positions are inconsistent with the traditional understanding of Kantian dignity, suggesting that social economists should either ground their positions on a different concept of dignity, or revise them to remain consistent with Kant's specific sense of dignity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Byrd, Sharon. (2002). “Kant's Theory of Contract.” Mark Timmons, ed.,Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 111–131.
Ellerman, David. (1988): “The Kantian Person/Thing Principle in Political Economy.”Journal of Economic Issues, 22: 1109–1122. Reprinted inIntellectual Trespassing as a Way of Life: Essays in Philosophy, Economics, and Mathematics, Chapter 4. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
—. (1990). TheDemocratic Worker-Owned Firm. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Gewirth, Alan. (1978).Reason and Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
—. (1996).The Community of Rights. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gregor, Mary. (1963).Laws of Freedom: A Study of Kant's Method of Applying the Categorical Imperative in the Metaphysik der Sitten. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Hill, Thomas. (1973). “Servility and Self-Respect.”The Monist, 57: 87–104. Reprinted inAutonomy and Self-Respect, Chapter 1.
—. (1983). “Self-Respect Reconsidered.”Tulane Studies in Philosophy, 31: 129–137. Reprinted inAutonomy and Self-Respect, Chapter 2.
—. (1991).Autonomy and Self-Respect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel. (1993 [1785]).Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
—. (1983 [1793]). “On the Proverb: That May Be True in Theory, But Is of No Practical Use.”Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Translated by Ted Humphrey. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 61–92.
—. (1996 [1797]).The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—. (1978 [1798]).Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Translated by Victor Lyle Dowdell. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
—. (1930).Lectures on Ethics. Translated by Louis Infield. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Kaufman, Alexander. (1999).Welfare in the Kantian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lutz, Mark A. (1999).Economics for the Common Good: Two Centuries of Social Economic Thought in the Humanistic Tradition. London: Routledge.
— and Kenneth Lux. (1988).Humanistic Economics: The New Challenge. New York: The Bootstrap Press.
Minkler, Lanse. (2001). “Review Essay onEconomics for the Common Good.”Review of Social Economy, 59:103–108.
Murphy, Jeffrie. (1970).Kant: The Philosophy of Right. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
O'Boyle, Edward J. (2001). “Personalist Economics: Unorthodox and Counter-Cultural.”Review of Social Economics, 59; 367–393.
Paton, H.J. (1947).The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral Philosophy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Rawls, John. (1971).A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sullivan, Roger J. (1989).Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
For helpful comments and criticism I thank John Davis, Charles Wilber, David Ellerman, and the rest of the participants in the “Economic Philosophy and Theories of Justice” session at the 2003 meetings of the Association for Social Economics, as well as two anonymous referees. All remaining errors are my own.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
White, M.D. Kantian dignity and social economics. FSSE 32, 1–11 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02779075
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02779075