Possession in Common: A Response to Angela Breitenbach’s ‘Kantian Climate Justice’
Clicks: 5
ID: 318311
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
5 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #8 of 12 articles by views in Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the relation between Kant’s categorical imperative and his account of right in the Metaphysics of Morals, with particular focus on his account of property. I use this to explain Breitenbach’s idea that Kant takes our ethical obligations to be indeterminate without the right political institutions. In resolving this indeterminacy, Kant takes the primary role of legal and political institutions to be the creation of a framework in which people are entitled to pursue private purposes for themselves. However, his systemic starting point means that we cannot secure everyone′s individual freedom without climate justice.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7165657642
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Lucy Allais |
| Journal | Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/arisup/akag002
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.