requires obedience, reinforced by coercion, regardless of the internal disposition and determined will of the individual, while morality recognizes only such behavior that is conditioned by the internal self-submission of the individual and is conditioned solely by respect for moral integrity 1).
This distinction between the two circles of manifestation of human freedom and the attribution of moral freedom to the autonomous individual, again created for the individual a degree of independence and self-determination, provided a barrier to the intervention of law in the area of morality, i.e., in the intimate sphere of the human personality, to which paternalistic government, enlightened absolutism and police had tendencies. state.
The above formula of Kant and his principles, which form the basis for understanding personality, principles that largely coincide with the natural law doctrine, to which the philosopher attaches not only methodological significance?), also defines his political teaching, which, however, allows for a deviation towards absolute statism. Giving the right an immanent explanation, Kant recognizes the state as an environment, i.e., a legal state 3), where the right finds protection. It must be replaced by the natural state with the help of "igzrgbteisve Koliga".
In the legal state, the individual finds natural freedom inviolable (sh etesh gesysVep Haufalae ip-
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
3) Or. Sat. h. 121, $ 41. Oefegoapo vot Me ipa Resh pa Mabigaazvapae 21 et pp tes Ysvep Khazbapae pbetVapr,
4) $47 Sh. This agreement is not a historical fact (a1z. en Eaebi), but a pure idea of reason. See the article about the saying: it may be good in theoretical, but in practice it is no good. 1793—(to the beginning). 95*
a <
about ini men:
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
Every citizen (as in Rousseau, Kant excludes children and women) receives the right to participate in legislation; that is, power, (1eo1]aioma) recognized by Kantom as supreme, is assigned to the people. Separately from her, the subordinate authorities: the judicial (1 <ama) and the executive (executive) serve as criteria for the republican spirit of governance (sha her 4e$ VesriêNsatzt) '). And the consistent action of all these authorities (w Shgeg Uegeniio) is the key to state security. At the same time, which should be especially emphasized for the formal theory of law and the state, it is not better and luckier (Wash, STaskzenekey) 2), they can be achievable even in despotism, but the realization of rights is the task of the state, its goal and the retribution of our debt; reason strives for it at the insistence of the categorical imperative 3).
Without entering. In further detail of Kant's legal and prayer theory, without contradicting it, in kind of granting the retent of the state (those richessers) rights over its subjects without limitation of duties, we point out
1) bte!No. 4er Easy ep I. Аъзевп. $ 6. This spirit can be found in both aristocrats and monarchs. Kanl distinguishes between Eorsh 4er Veerzsvips and Coti 4er Velegipe and attaches significance only to the first; if it involves division of authorities, then the second is not essential for the concept of republicanism. Slvd.., opdashepto <Lazz!sayot!z in Kant, ultimately, is the relationship of the individual to the state. The same attitude serves as the basis for the classification of state forms by Montesquieu, who considers a despot. irregular form, because it does not contain the concept of separation of powers. This kind of individualistic feature of the development of state forums is extremely typical for the era under consideration. This individualization is especially characteristic in comparison with the classifications of the ancient philosophy of the state (Aristotle, Polybian) and the classifications of the 19th century, for example. Lorenz Von Stein; This last one introduces a social-economic feature, contrasting the state not with the individual, but with society. For the first time, this political difference in the basis of classifications of states was brought to our attention by Prof. Korkunov, (See his Kure of State Law tg. 1).
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
The ideas already put forward by Kant, together with the arguments presented above, led to the theory of state indifferentism; Its spokesman was Wilhelm Humboldt; it was the culmination of the opposition of the individual to the state, taken to the extreme.