The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 27 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Kant on Capital Punishment and Suicide
Open accessAbstract
In the Metaphysics of Morals Kant clearly, and indeed ardently, upholds the state's right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the law of retribution ( ius talionis ). The “principle of equality” as between crime and punishment demands that those who wrongfully kill another should be put to death, for, in having inflicted such an evil upon another, the murderer has effectively killed himself. Kant is quite emphatic on this point: those who have committed murder “must die ”. Here, he argues, “there is no substitute that will satisfy justice”, for there “is no similarity between life, however wretched it may be, and death, hence no likeness between the crime and the retribution unless death is judicially carried out upon the wrongdoer […]”. The ius talionis is, for Kant, the basic principle and measure in accordance with which criminal justice functions. Since the ius talionis entails a strict equality between crime and punishment, Kant's insistence that only the death penalty serves as the appropriate response to murder (or to any other equally egregious crime) is fairly straightforward.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper argues that Kant’s own prohibition on suicide, grounded in the irrationality of willing the annihilation of the autonomous will, undermines his endorsement of capital punishment. It contends that capital punishment is formally equivalent to suicide and cannot be rationally willed by a co-legislator in the original contract.
Key findings
- The author argues that practical reason cannot sanction the deliberate killing of a human being: as self-legislating will (*Wille*), practical reason cannot posit its own annihilation without contradiction, so capital punishment is irrational within Kant’s framework.
- Kant’s distinction between *homo noumenon* as pure rational legislator and *homo phaenomenon* as criminal fails, because execution extinguishes the autonomous will; if embodiment is a precondition of moral agency, the death of the criminal also destroys the self-legislating subject.
- The criminal retains “innate personality” and some capacity for rational agency, losing only “civil personality”; Kant’s retributivism requires a voluntary act and forbids treating the criminal as a mere thing, so capital punishment cannot be rationally consented to by a politically autonomous citizen.
- Capital punishment is not coercion in the Kantian sense: coercion targets *Willkür* and presupposes the continued existence of the subject, whereas execution eliminates the subject and reaches inner freedom/*Wille*. Kant’s reply to Beccaria therefore does not answer Beccaria’s question.
Methods
- Conceptual and philosophical analysis of Kant’s texts, including the *Metaphysics of Morals*, *Lectures on Ethics*, *Groundwork*, *Critique of Practical Reason*, and *Toward Perpetual Peace*, alongside secondary literature such as Beccaria, Rawls, Hill, Merle, and Dyke.
- The paper reconstructs Kant’s arguments on suicide, self-punishment, autonomy, right, coercion, and punishment, then tests whether capital punishment can be consistently derived from those premises.
- No empirical sample or quantitative analysis is used; the argument is normative and interpretive.
Limitations
- The paper states that Kant remains silent on how the duty against suicide could be overridden by conflicting grounds of obligation and does not resolve the casuistical questions he invokes.
- It acknowledges that Rawls’s interpretation of possible exceptions poses a difficulty, and that the argument would fall apart if self-punishment were rational or if Merle’s reading of the criminal were correct; the author argues against both.
- The author notes a controversial issue he cannot pursue—whether immoral action is free or autonomous—and admits a “narrow and restrictive reading” of the coercion–punishment connection; the argument also depends on “assuming Dyke’s interpretation is correct.” Evident from the text: the conclusions rest on interpretive premises rather than empirical evidence.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
64 Own interpretation · 31 No basis given · 19 Sources not found · 4 No full text of the sources · 2 Not checked yet
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is to say, simply, that there are certain things that a rational agent cannot will, qua rational agent.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Remarks on the Kantian conception of autonomy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, I cite the passage only to show that self-annihilation as a means to punishment is not an end that a rational will could consistently posit for itself, and that Kant was unequivocal about this.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Suicide as self-punishment?
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, capital punishment is not a rationally permissible form of coercion.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Put differently: the will as legislator cannot authorize its own destruction as subject because its capacity for freedom and autonomy (i.e., its very constitution), and thus its continued existence, is what makes it possible for the will to be a source of legislation for itself in the first place.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Why suicide is irrational according to Kant
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So it is not just that the will cannot posit death as a means to a discretionary end, but rather that it cannot posit death as such (in the absence of an overriding imperative, as discussed below).”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Why suicide is irrational according to Kant
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Suicide constitutes a contradiction in the will in the most radical sense, because it entails the will's contemplation of its own annihilation.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Why suicide is irrational according to Kant
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, we may have to concede that even though the (direct) annihilation of the autonomous, rational will itself is an absolutely inconceivable end, its (indirect) annihilation is nevertheless conceivable, if the end posited is not death as such, but rather the fulfillment of some other ethical requirement.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Suicide as self-punishment?
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“according to Kant, suicide is irrational, even as a means to self-punishment, because it involves rooting out the existence of morality itself from the world”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“But we cannot have any juridical duties where we have not entered into (external) relations with others”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The power to punish and coerce rests exclusively within the domain of public justice (a court), and is deployed by way of ensuring that no individual exercises his outer freedom in a manner that is”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 27
- It may state two separate claims as one. 23
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Practical reason, as it governs the subject internally, cannot sanction the annihilation of the conditions of its own instantiation, namely its embodiment in the physical person.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it sets our juridical duties as limits on our comportment so that it may conform with an equal degree of freedom for all”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Now, the justification of punishment is understood to be grounded in the Kantian authorization of coercion.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hill (1999) 429
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Byrd (1989) source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Kant's Universal Principle of Right states that any “action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law””
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MS, AA 06: 230; 387
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as it is irrational (or selfcontradictory) and hence impermissible for me to frame a suicidal maxim from an ethical standpoint, it is also irrational and hence impermissible for me to frame a capital penal law as a co-legislator in the social contract from a political standpoint.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Remarks on the Kantian conception of autonomy
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: There is a conceptual interconnection between practical reason, the universal will, the principle of right, and the idea of the original contract.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An obvious example is Kant's strict prohibition on lying, the consequence of which is that we must tell the truth even if doing so results in death.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Suicide as self-punishment?
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is because practical reason, in both its internal and external aspects, cannot sanction without contradiction an (ethical) maxim or a (juridical) law the end of which is human death and the annihilation of the rational will that it necessarily entails (for obvious reasons).”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Remarks on the Kantian conception of autonomy
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: There is a conceptual interconnection between practical reason, the universal will, the principle of right, and the idea of the original contract.
In the paper
“death entails its annihilation; death negates an essential condition under which any exercise of autonomy is possible (at least in this life).”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Why suicide is irrational according to Kant
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites VE, AA 27: 369-370; 144-145
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-execution as a means to punishment is simply not within the scope of autonomous agency, i.e., it is not an end that a will could rationally legislate for itself.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Suicide as self-punishment?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As it happens, Kant is highly unlikely to endorse self-punishment as a rational end, given this claim:”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Suicide as self-punishment?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MS, AA 06: 335; 476
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is no doubt related to the position that capital punishment is a prerogative of the state, which is an additional reason as to why it falls outside the proper scope of individual autonomy, i.e., besides the fact that it is inherently irrational from the standpoint of an individual ethics and the duties Kant believes we owe to ourselves.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Suicide as self-punishment?
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if there is a case to be made from within the Kantian framework at all -i.e., if Kant's own arguments could somehow be used against his endorsement of capital punishment -it must contend with the Kantian division between the ethical and political (or juridi-”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Abstract
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“external lawgiving governs the relations between citizens in civil society in so far as the external actions of each may affect the actions of others”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MS, AA 06: 229ff; 386 ff.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Now, Kant remains silent on the question as to how exactly the duty against suicide could be overridden in situations where there are conflicting grounds of obligation, and he does not actually resolve the casuistical questions he invokes.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Suicide as self-punishment?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The death penalty, as a form of punishment, is supposed to be a rightful coercive response to an unrightful hindrance of the freedom of another, i.e., to a violation of right.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“external lawgiving as bound by the Universal Principle of Right is connected with an authorization to use coercion, 33 which is to say that juridical duties may be physically or externally enforced and that, in general, the physical or external coercion of the juridical subject is compatible with the dictates of practical reason”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MS, AA 06: 231; 388
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At a minimum, practical reason cannot formulate principles of conduct that are self-contradictory, internally (or logically) inconsistent, or incoherent from the standpoint of the will's (Wille) own essential attribute as the source of universally valid and unconditionally binding moral principles.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Remarks on the Kantian conception of autonomy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Although juridical duties based on the principle of right are also ethical duties (MS, AA 06: 219-220; 383-385), the reverse is not true for Kant.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MS, AA 06: 219-220; 383-385
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And this applies to the ethical and the juridical standpoints equally, because the operation of reason as a practical faculty is what makes human autonomy as such possible.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Remarks on the Kantian conception of autonomy
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Put simply, practical reason, as selflegislating will (Wille), cannot posit its own annihilation without contradiction.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For him, the justification of a maxim or end that involves the negation of its own justificatory ground is (formally) inconceivable; autonomy cannot be exercised to achieve some (discretionary) end that effectively cancels out autonomy itself.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Why suicide is irrational according to Kant
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For, according to Kant, we are autonomous beings precisely because the source of the laws that determine our exercise of freedom, or free choice (Willkür), ultimately resides within ourselves, i.e., within the will (Wille) as practical reason itself.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Remarks on the Kantian conception of autonomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MS, AA 06: 213; 375
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, in this sense, capital punishment just is a form of suicide, and Kant ought to have thereby excluded it as a punitive practice in a rationally constituted republic.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
plainstates a cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If the overarching purpose of right is to provide the requisite security for a condition of maximal freedom, wherein human autonomy may ultimately flourish, 80 it is difficult to see how a punitive practice that involves an absolute negation of freedom could be part of a condition of right in this sense.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guyer (1997)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Willkür is supposed to be merely a kind of executive function of Wille (as the legislative function of pure reason), but given human weakness does not always comply with its dictates.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment does not have place in the scheme contemplated by the Rechtslehre
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Simply put, Kant cannot be saying that the criminal act is involuntary or that the criminal exhibits no capacity for rational agency at the time he commits it.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Does the criminal cease being rational by virtue of his crime?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites KpV, AA 05: 89-106; 211-225
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But this is deeply problematic, because the real question is not what the citizen can legitimately will once he has become a criminal, but rather what he can rationally assent to prior to this, i.e., prior to having forfeited his civil personality”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > The second part of Kant's response to Beccaria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is just to say that the criminal no longer has a right to be an authoritative participant in decisions pertaining to his own external freedom, so that he could, for instance, be chained or locked up for the entirety of his existence.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Does the criminal cease being rational by virtue of his crime?
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Crime and punishment cannot be placed in the same category as uses of human freedom in general (as forms of human agency), and so there may be certain inexorable limitations on the latter that preclude the strictness of equivalence that Kant demands.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Additional information
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, we saw earlier that right is inherently connected with an authorization to use coercion, and that this is the basis of our ability to grant rational assent to penal laws, which, in threatening sanctions in case of non-compliance, are coercive in nature.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > The second part of Kant's response to Beccaria
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hill (1999), 428ff
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For, retributivism holds that the extent to which the criminal act may be imputed to the criminal, i.e., the extent of his responsibility, determines, limits, and justifies, the extent to which he suffers punishment.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Does the criminal cease being rational by virtue of his crime?
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Now, I take Kant to be saying that the forfeiture of his civil personality deprives the criminal of a voice in legislation, i.e., that criminals having been severed from the original contract, their external freedom need not figure in the operation of practical reason in its ordering of external relations among citizens.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Does the criminal cease being rational by virtue of his crime?
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“But Wille and Willkür are two aspects of human freedom as such, 78 and it would make no sense to say that a person may exhibit Willkür without being also possessed of Wille.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment does not have place in the scheme contemplated by the Rechtslehre
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Benson (1987), 571 source
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The concept of right, insofar as it is related to an obligation corresponding to it (i.e., the moral concept of right), has to do, first, only with the external and indeed practical relation of one person to another, insofar as their actions, as deeds, can have (direct or indirect) influence on each other.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment does not have place in the scheme contemplated by the Rechtslehre
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MS, AA 06: 230; 387
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Thus, where penal laws are concerned, “it is pure reason in me (homo noumenon)” 42 that legislates with regard to rights.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MS, AA 06: 335; 476
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Assuming Dyke's interpretation is correct, namely that in the Kantian framework one man with an autonomous will could in principle legitimately legislate for all, Kant's argument as to the irrationality of suicide (and self-punishment) would preclude such a man from subjecting himself to a form of punishment that entails his own death.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment in civil society and the conditions of political autonomy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dyke (1969), 28 source
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So, if we are committed to saying that criminal actions must be voluntary, then we have to admit that the criminal exhibits (some) capacity for rational agency.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Does the criminal cease being rational by virtue of his crime?
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Kant's effort to sever the co-legislator of the penal law and the criminal on whom it is applied must, for this reason, fail, and so capital punishment is not a provision that a politically autonomous citizen can rationally consent to.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Does the criminal cease being rational by virtue of his crime?
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This goes along with a wellaccepted interpretation of Kant's Rechtslehre, namely that it cannot be the aim of law and politics to force citizens to be virtuous”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment does not have place in the scheme contemplated by the Rechtslehre
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gregor (1963), 26-38
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So, as long as a criminal act may be said to be a wrongful exercise of Willkür, the criminal is culpable and thus liable for punishment.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment does not have place in the scheme contemplated by the Rechtslehre
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a manner of speaking, the Wille cannot be made to pay for the sins of Willkür, and that is just what capital punishment purports to do.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment does not have place in the scheme contemplated by the Rechtslehre
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Now, we have seen that Kant's view of freedom involves the distinction between Wille and Willkür -and that it is the latter that accounts for a free, imputable act, which is freely made even where it is made irrationally, i.e., against the dictates of Wille as practical reason.”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > Capital punishment does not have place in the scheme contemplated by the Rechtslehre
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Benson (1987), 571 source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Kant ought to have allowed an exception to his demand for a strict, literal equivalence be- tween crime and punishment in the case of murder, as he does for rape, pederasty and bes- tiality (MS, AA 06: 363; 498), because it is impossible to will a death, i.e., to reproduce at a rational level what the murderer has chosen irrationally”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > References
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MS, AA 06: 363; 498
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the question raised by Beccaria is, precisely, whether there can be any judgement to forfeit one's life on the part of reason in the first place (given that life is an essential precondition of the possibility any judgement).”
§ Capital Punishment and Suicide > The second part of Kant's response to Beccaria
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Rests on an assumption: Life is an essential precondition of the possibility of any judgement.
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is a conceptual interconnection between practical reason, the universal will, the principle of right, and the idea of the original contract.
“These questions presuppose that there is a conceptual interconnection between”
The paper relies on this without support.
Punitive provisions are indispensable in civil society, so punishment as such is not merely an arbitrary end.
“We have accepted that punitive provisions are indispensable in civil society, so that punishment as such is not some merely arbitrary end.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Physical embodiment, i.e., continued living, is an essential precondition of moral agency; homo noumenon can exist in this world only insofar as it is also physically instantiated as homo phaenomenon.
“If physical embodiment, i.e., continued living, is an essential precondition of moral agency -if homo noumenon can exist in this world only in so far as it is also physically instantiated as homo phaenomenon”
The paper relies on this without support.
Life is an essential precondition of the possibility of any judgement.
“given that life is an essential precondition of the possibility any judgement”
The paper relies on this without support.
The state's application of force in punishment is rational.
“the other is supposed to be a rational application of force on the part of a state agency”
The paper relies on this without support.
Human subjects have a natural aversion to being punished and will avoid sanctions by complying with the law.
“the human subject can be expected to have a natural aversion to being punished and will avoid sanctions by complying with the law”
The paper relies on this without support.
Coercion presupposes weakness of Willkür, such that it may be affected in such a way as to induce compliance with right.
“That is, coercion presupposes weakness of Willkür, that it may be affected in such a way as to induce compliance with right.”
Citations
Cites
Kant's theory of punishment: Deterrence in its threat, retribution in its execution
Byrd, B. S. (1989) · Law and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/bf00160010 · Cited by 184
Autonomy, obligation, and virtue: An overview of Kant's moral philosophy
Schneewind, J. (1992) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199563012.003.0014 · Cited by 76
Scheid, D. E. (1983) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/292433 · Cited by 74
A History of Political Thought.
Brogan, D. W., & Doyle, P. B. (1933) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2548921 · Cited by 51
External Freedom according to Kant
Benson, P. (1987) · Columbia Law Review · doi:10.2307/1122671 · Cited by 23
Autonomy and Authority in Kant's Rechtslehre
Dodson, K. E. (1997) · Political Theory · doi:10.1177/0090591797025001005 · Cited by 11
Collective Decision Making in Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Mill
Dyke, C. (1969) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/291745 · Cited by 6
The Place of Punishment in Kant's Rechtslehre
Gorner, P. (2000) · Kantian Review · doi:10.1017/s1369415400000534 · Cited by 3
Kant's Theory of Punishment: Deterrence in Its Threat, Retribution in Its Execution
Byrd, B. S. (1989) · Law and Philosophy · doi:10.2307/3504694
Law as a Kantian Idea of Reason
Weinrib, E. J. (1987) · Columbia Law Review · doi:10.2307/1122668
Cited by
Sorted by citations
German Idealism and the Concept of Punishment
Merle, J. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511770425 · Cited by 16
Bargu, B. (2024) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197608531.001.0001 · Cited by 7
On Kant’s Duty to Speak the Truth
Mertens, T. (2016) · Kantian Review · doi:10.1017/s1369415415000291 · Cited by 7
“This is maybe the idea behind Kant’s remark that a murderer ‘chooses’ his own death by killing another person (MdSR, 6: 332; see Ataner 2006).”
BackgroundThe Symbol of Justice: Bloodguilt in Kant
Thomason, K. K. (2020) · Kantian Review · doi:10.1017/s1369415420000345 · Cited by 4
In defence of Kant’s moral prohibition on suicide solely to avoid suffering
Vong, G. (2008) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2007.021410 · Cited by 4
“Suicide necessarily involves the annihilation of the physical state necessary for rational thought. That is, without life, we cannot reason. As a result, when applying CI1, a functional contradiction arises in the act of suicide because the will cannot rationally endorse the annihilation of the physical conditions the…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Ataner, A.
- Corresponding author
- Ataner, Attila
- Venue
- Kant Studien
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2006-01-01
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 0022-8877 (ISSN-L)
- 1613-1134
- OpenAlex
- W2036773832
- Semantic Scholar
- 5689aeccd36bd9b10e0e0f0fbedf5031b1fd16a8
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2024: 18 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 5.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- philarchive.org
- Locations
- Kant-Studien (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Kantian Philosophy and Modern Interpretations
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Policy
- Keywords
- Immanuel Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, death penalty, suicide, retribution, principle of equality, murder, criminal justice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
