Skip to main content

Marriage, Morality, and Institutional Value

Abstract

This paper develops a Kantian account of the moral assessment of institutions. The problem I address is this: while a deontological theory may find that some legal institutions are required by justice, it is not obvious how such a theory can assess institutions not strictly required (or prohibited) by justice. As a starting-point, I consider intuitions that in some cases it is desirable to attribute non-consequentialist moral value to institutions not required by justice. I will argue that neither consequentialist nor virtue-ethical accounts account for these intuitions, suggesting that a distinctive deontological account is needed. The account I give is drawn from Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals; I distinguish it from Kantian views of institutions developed by Barbara Herman and Onora O’Neill. Throughout, I use marriage as an example.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. A phrase used in Kipnis 2003 and Kingston 2004.

  2. Due to space constraints, I do not discuss rule-utilitarianism here.

  3. I withhold objections here to the perfectionist view of political institutions as justifiable by their promotion of virtues.

  4. The page number after the backslash refers to Kant 1900-. See also Kant 1797, Introduction, xviii––xx.

  5. I find many problems here. Does marriage really promote ‘erotic love’? And presumably the importance of erotic love varies: Don Juan or Savonarola might flourish without it.

  6. Kant’s chief writings on sex and marriage can be found in the Metaphysics of Morals (1900-, 6:276–84, 358–61, 424–26, 469–73), the Lectures on Ethics (1900-, 27:48–52, 27:384–92), and Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1900-, 7:303–11).

  7. I criticize this view in Brake 2005.

  8. See Okin 1989 and Shanley 2004, 3–30.

  9. O’Neill 1985, 1989. Such reasoning is not uncommon among Kantians: for instance, Goldman 1976.

  10. O’Neill (1989, 123) suggests using “the results of social inquiry” to determine maxims, but I think this faces the same objections.

  11. A reviewer for the British Society for Ethical Theory conference suggested these responses.

  12. Similar problems arise for Kant (1797–1798 567/6:447) who held that “[t]he depths of the human heart are unfathomable.”

  13. “The great maxims of justice and charity,” O’Neill 1989, 219–233. Compare O’Neill 2000.

  14. Kant 1797–1798, 413/6:261; this is a hypothetical, not an actual, contract. Williams 1977 helpfully suggests understanding the ‘contract’ as a tacit underlying assumption.

References

  • Bloom A (1987) The closing of the American mind. Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brake E (2005) Justice and virtue in Kant’s account of marriage. Kantian Rev 9:58–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Card C (1996) Against marriage and motherhood. Hypatia 11(3):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman A (1976) The entitlement theory of distributive justice. J Philos 73(21):823–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegel GWF (1821) Elements of the philosophy of right. In: Wood A (ed) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999, translated by HB Nisbet)

  • Herman B (1993) Could it be worth thinking about Kant on sex and marriage? In: Antony L, Witt C (eds) A mind of one’s own: feminist essays on reason and objectivity. Westview, Boulder, CO, pp 49–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (ca. 1762–1794) Lectures on ethics. In: Heath P, Schneewind JB (ed) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997, Translated by P Heath)

  • Kant I (1797) Metaphysical elements of justice, 2nd edn. Hackett, Indianapolis (1999, Translated by J Ladd)

  • Kant I (1797–1798) Metaphysics of morals. In: Gregor M (ed and translator) Practical philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 353–603, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (1798) Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. In: Louden RB (ed and translated). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

  • Kant I (1900-) Kants Gesammelte Schriften. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingston A (2004) The meaning of wife. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis L (2003) Against love. Pantheon, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre A (1994) After virtue, 2nd edn. Duckworth, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Okin SM (1989) Justice, gender, and the family. Basic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill O (1985) Between consenting adults. Philos Public Aff 14(3):252–277 (Reprinted in O’Neill (1989), pp 105–125)

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill O (1989) Constructions of reason: explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill O (2000) Bounds of justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice, revised edition. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Scruton R (1986) Sexual desire. Free Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanley ML (2004) Just marriage. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedgwood R (1999) The fundamental argument for same-sex marriage. J Polit Philos 7(3):225–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams H (1977) Kant’s concept of property. Philos Q 27(106):32–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to audiences at the British Society for Ethical Theory, the Canadian Philosophical Association, and Carleton University, the University of Calgary Ethics Group, Ali Kazmi, Ann Levey, David Sobel, and an anonymous BSET reviewer for helpful comments, and to the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Brake.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brake, E. Marriage, Morality, and Institutional Value. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 10, 243–254 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-007-9066-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-007-9066-6

Keywords

  • Institution
  • Marriage
  • Kant
  • Deontology
  • Value
  • Rights