Kantian Freedom as "Purposiveness"

Abstract

Arthur Ripstein's conception of Kantian freedom has exerted an enormous recent influence on scholars of Kant's political philosophy; however, the conception seems to me flawed. In this paper, I argue that Ripstein's conception of Kantian freedom as "your capacity to choose the ends you will use your means to pursue"- your "purposiveness"- is both too narrow and too broad: (1) Wrongful acts such as coercive threats cannot choose my ends for me; instead, such acts wrongfully restrict my perceived options. And (2) rightful changes to the context in which I choose that render my means insufficient for my ends restrict my capacity to choose them. Alternatively, my purposiveness reduces to my entitlements; but then freedom as purposiveness is viciously circular or fails as a new approach to the "devastating"objection that motivates it.