Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:22:49.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L. Krasnoff, N. S. Madrid, P. Satne (eds), Kant’s Doctrine of Right in the 21st Century Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2018 Pp. ix + 244 ISBN 9781786831804 (hbk) £90.00

Review products

L. Krasnoff, N. S. Madrid, P. Satne (eds), Kant’s Doctrine of Right in the 21st Century Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2018 Pp. ix + 244 ISBN 9781786831804 (hbk) £90.00

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 August 2018

Amna Whiston
Amna Whiston*
Affiliation:
University of Reading
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 521 - 526
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2018 

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.)

References

Byrd, B. Sharon and Hruschka, Joachim (2010) Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Elisabeth (2012) Kant’s Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur (2009) Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur (1969/1818) The World as Will and Representation, vol. 1. Trans E. F. J. Payne. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (1997) ‘Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Unsufruct?’. Annual Review of Law and Ethics, 5, 141–194.Google Scholar