2013 Issue №2(44)

The present paper focuses on the ethical and anthropological foundations of Kant’s philosophy of family law conceived as a “personal right that is real in kind”: the possibility of possessing a person as a property item presets the antinomy of moral and legal principles, which reproduces the conflict between Roman naturalistic legal theory and the contractual philosophy of natural law. The author also considers the ways to  overcome this antinomy, as well as ensuing solutions to the problems relating to the legal foundations and the subject of family law.

This article is devoted to the search for an adequate justification for the modern policy of cosmopolitism. The author maintains that the legitimation of cosmopolitism is of rather cultural than political nature. Liberal cultural pluralism based on universal political and legal principles (Kant and Rawls) proves to be insufficient. However, it provides the means to solve the problems and to avoid the extremes of cultural cosmopolitism, such as the European “negative identity”, juridification, and new modern forms of identity-centred political moralism akin to the “hyperdemocracy of the masses”.

John Rawls’s interpretation of Kant’s categorical imperative is reviewed, some significant aspects of Rawls’ treatment of key notions of rationality, interests and ends are revealed, which limit the possibilities of application of Kantian ethics within Rawls’ liberal egalitarianism.