Moral Law

Catechism ?
We say that people “deserve” happiness, or are worthiness of happiness. According to Kant,
there is something more than pleasure and pain
A crime is to bring pain on yourself because you weren’t prudent or smart enough. You thought
you couldn’t get caught.
Theory of action: Actions are activities which are determined on two grounds: intention (what
I want) and motivation (why? Happiness/pleasure)
Intention and motivation can be empirical or something else
Empirical intention is when you tell yourself what you want and this thing you want can be
seen, touched, felt or smelt; it is a sensuous object ex: I want Apple  Apple is there 
Empirical determination of the will / Motivation: because I’m hungry and it brings me pleasure
I’m doing it because I want to go to paradise  Not empirical
Subjective practical law/Maxim: Not a universal law  can’t be applied everywhere ex: “I
will only eat vegetables”
Universal law:
 Everyone should be able to abide by this law all the time (applicable on everyone)
 It should be able to determine our actions (what is motivation/what is intention)
Happiness is universal, we do everything for happiness (including suicide)  Motivation
Does happiness tell us what to do? To steal or not to steal? No  not a necessary determination
of the will (intention)  Problem of principle of happiness
0% risk of getting caught stealing money  I steal according to principle of happiness
However, there is something other than happiness, some people say “I don’t steal because I’m a
person who doesn’t steal”  Out of principle: I never steal
Kant found the Moral Law: Act so that the maxim of your action can hold in the same time as
universal law
Should I steal? If you make theft as a universal law, it is no longer theft  Things lose value
(such as private property)  bad action since the concept of theft auto self-destroy
A murderer kills in a normal situation, not a situation of war
If we make murder a universal law, you will be only killing, but not murdering  Not anymore
what it is (murder)  it is forbidden
Conceptual Version vs Imaginary Version
Killing  everyone is dead  can’t kill anymore
Eating a banana: If everyone eats a banana, I will still be eating a banana  It is a moral good
Why shouldn’t we lie?
Conceptual version: When we lie, we consider that a sentence has a value of truth. If lying
becomes universal, speech will lose its value. When we say a sentence, it doesn’t have a value
 can’t be a lie in first place, it will only be a false statement.  Lies are conceptually
destroyed
Imaginary version: If you’re in a village where everyone lies and someone comes and tells you
that he wants to sell you bread, you don’t believe him in the first place for him to be able to lie
Why shouldn’t we steal?
Conceptually: If we make theft a law, there will be not stealing, it will be only taking
Imaginary: If everyone steals, there will be nothing left to steal, hence I can’t steal anymore
Why shouldn’t we betray?
Conceptually: If betrayal is universal, there won’t be values for relations anymore (just
encounters) so you can do whatever you want and have any relation with anyone (not betrayal)
Imaginary: If everyone starts betraying, no one will get married in the first place, so there won’t
be betrayal anymore
Things have values because they fit the moral law. If you look at the world empirically, it is a
world which is void of values. If you associate the law with this world, it becomes valuable, it
acquires a moral determination
If your enemy catches you and ask for the location of your friends, should you betray your
friends? No, because betrayal is bad in itself since betrayal is a contradictory concept when it
becomes universal (On the ground of pure reason)
If you don’t betray because you love them, you are not free.
For Kant, you are free when you do things not because of pleasure but on the ground of
the moral law (When you follow pure reason)
The pain you get from torture is only pain unless you add to it the willingness of enduring the
pain because of the moral law, together they form an experience, the experience of freedom.
When are you free? When you are willing to determine the will on the ground of reason
If the animal guides you (pleasure/pain), you are not free ex: eating apple because hungry
Moral dilemma: between pleasure and pain vs reason: Determination to determine your will
on ground of pure reason or pleasure
 Ground
Kant says that we shouldn’t kill because the concept of murder is an incoherent concept. If it is
allowed, life would lose its value, and this action, which is taking away a life, is not a murder
anymore. You can only murder someone if we agreed that no one will murder the other.
Can you be a friend and dishonest with your friend? No since the concept of friendship includes
honesty as one of its components/parameters. (Coherence of concept of friendship)
Same for being a husband and betraying. Sometimes it happens but we know how the world
should be. We know that we shouldn’t have done that.
Duty: I have to/You should; The moral law is a categorical imperative
Opposite of imperative is hypothetical imperative (if…then) ex: if you want to be rich, save
money
Can you act out of pure duty when you have a prospect to make money out of it? Or getting a
good position? Or in order to sell more?
For Kant, you can only be honest for the sake of honesty only.
Empirical determination of the will: I want to eat cake
Moral action is when you act out of pure reason/morality
You can’t be moral by seeking pain or pleasure
Only you can know if you did something out of duty or out of something else
Morality can never be related with consequences
1. If you want to be dutiful, you should act out of pure good will.
2. To have a pure good will, you should determine your will on the ground of pure reason
(coherence of concept) ex friendship  honesty
How did Kant get the moral law? Purely conceptual deduction
We have all kinds of should and shouldn’t
Is there a law that would explain all kinds of categorical imperatives?
1. All duties are duties (they have “should”), so the form of the law of the laws will be a
categorical imperative (A priori)
2. Particular laws are in conformity with the universal law (A priori)
3. The law itself is that the particular laws should be in conformity with the universal law
Suppose you are a person who acts from a rational perspective, if you are alone on an island,
can you be moral with your cat? No
If you want to act morally, you determine your action based on pure reason. What in this world
can represent pure reason to be the call of my action?
Another human being only
If I want to do a purely moral action, the end of the action cannot be something other than pure
reason, or else it’s not pure action anymore and the only thing which has pure reason is another
rational agent.  I can only do moral actions with moral people  The way you relate to
yourself is your relation with the other
If you’re alone, you could be in a state of morality but not acting morally.
1. To be able to make a dutiful/moral action, you need to determine your will as a good will.
2. To do that, you need pure reason
3. To have pure reason, you need the moral law
To do the action, you need another person or else your action will be oriented towards
something else, which contradicts good will and moral law
Pure reason can only have itself as an end
We encounter the law in the form of a “should” because as humans we are an incarnated reason.
Part of us is empirical and part of us is rational  rational animals
We shouldn’t lie because something in us likes to lie  the animal
Necessity: we as humans see the world as necessity order, we see the nature as governed by
laws (01:10 + page 107)
Necessitation
I want to respect the moral law whatever happens  intention
To understand why we act morally, we need happiness
What motivates the action? Unearthly happiness: paradise
However, if you think about paradise, you get a sensual determination and you are not a moral
agent anymore
You have to do it blindly
 God
Can I act morally in view of the consequences of my action? No
If I can’t determine my action on the ground of consequence, I determine it on the ground of
pure reason
Reasoning: Premise  Minor  Conclusion
Kant studies the coherence of the concept of the whole duty
A duty: ex: We have to be honest with our friends because friendship implies honesty
The concept of duty: you shouldn’t act on the ground of consequences, but on the ground of
pure practical reason. This opens on a “machine” that validates what is reasonable from what is
not.  The Moral Law
In the physical law, the cases (facts) do conform  Physics changes  Not eternal
In the moral law, the particular laws have to conform with the universal law  from beginning
to eternity  in all communities  never changes
The end of my action can only be reason and reason itself, or else it’s a consequence which is
not pure reason  The destiny of my action is something that represents pure reason  another
intelligent human being
Problem: Any action divides into motivation (usually happiness) and intention
What do I want? I want to act morally (intention)
If we want to act, we should have a motivation (Why do you want it?), but in this world,
motivation is sensual  So we can’t act morally  Contradiction: Antinomy of practical
reason
We need consensual happiness/unearthly pleasure
It is possible to act morally and be happy (if you’re lucky), but it is not a necessity ex: You tell
the truth to your friend and he’s not your friend anymore  No connection between morality
and earthly happiness
Job the prophet lost his cattles and children and wife and house but he didn’t renounce God
Nature doesn’t care  it is immoral  doesn’t follow moral law ex: tsunami
Can you imagine a world where everything behaves morally? Nothing harms anything
Heaven is where morality implies happiness  not a contradictory concept
In heaven, we have an intelligence that applies the moral law  we are free since we follow
moral law and not senses
Who is creative, intelligent, and highly moral? God
In order to act morally, we should have an unearthly pleasure (doesn’t depend on sensations)
What is our motivation then? Paradise
When you thematize heaven (imagine it), you lose it
We have to act blindly to be in light (I don’t know why, but because I know it’s right,
something tells me I shouldn’t betray)
Paradise is one of the conditions of moral actions or else they become immoral: this is the
solution for antinomy (there must be paradise somewhere)
Conditions: God and immortality of the soul
Without these two, we can’t understand moral action
Only one creature (man) is free to follow the moral law or not (his decision)
There is a God since one man really died in the name of morality (revelation)  There must be
a God
Humility/Humbleness: we shouldn’t be too harsh if we see someone addicted
We are all sinners, we can’t really blame the person because in this world we are incarnated
(half animal half reason)  really difficult to be moral
We have to have faith in God and immortality to be able to be moral (as a motivation)
Salvation: to save your soul (you’re the only one responsible for saving your soul since you are
the only one who knows if your confession and motivation is pure)
Confession is to get rid of your sinful ideas
Blessing/thankfulness: pray before eating  only take pleasure after checking that it is in
conformity with morality
The believer: the one who acts morally and knows about revelation
Atheist: not believer but moral hence they are believer but don’t know that
Worst species:
Domestic (01:12:30)
Fundamentalist copy Jesus  don’t think
Fanatic
Depraved: Aware but always does the opposite
Moderate: not harsh on people
Conservative: too harsh
Liberal: lost guy and thinks everything is about pleasure/having fun
 Ethics
Kant says that reason can be practical because you can want what reason wants.
In utilitarianism, there is no necessitation.
In Kantianism, it’s not about feeling, it’s about aligning your will (intellectual determination of
your desire) with what reason wants
3rd law: Law of humanity: never use humanity as means but always address them as ends
Honest with friend because friendship means honesty vs because he is rich
Reason is represented in the other. Persona is the mask, we are the masks of reason
My friend plays the pure concept of friendship
In himself, my friend is friendship.
The 2nd law: actions that are really taken in the order of nature (how should we related to
nature?)
1st and 3rd are in realm of reason (between people)
Against homosexuality since you can’t make a natural law (you can’t do that forever ie
extinction)
Your duty is that you have to act in conformity with these 3 laws (reason, nature, humanity)
Your duty is to be a universal agent  you are free
 only obligation is to be free (from desire, pain, pleasure…)
If you want to play poker, the concept of poker is to lie and cheat
The moral law determines what is inacceptable
If an action includes lying and cheating, it is inacceptable
What actions are recommended among those are inacceptable?
Eating French fries in front of television holds as being acceptable, but is not recommended
What is the criteria to determine which ends are recommended? (We choose our ends freely)
Can we have a universal end? Not everyone likes to go jogging
We don’t have a universal end, but we can make universality as an end.
For ethics, “choose ends that can be universally chosen”
- Preserve (perfect) yourself and be holy  What anyone would like to do
Perfect yourself ???? Become moral
Preserve yourself: stay alive/preserve the animal in you while you don’t abdicate morality and
the like
Life in itself doesn’t have value, it has to be related with moral law
Sometimes we should let go of life to be moral
Life has value since it is the place where we can practice morality, so we have to preserve it to
be able to perform morality
Should it be acceptable to kill yourself? If everyone kills themselves it’s still suicide
You are using yourself (the animal in you) as a means for a possible pleasure (to end misery) 
not moral anymore
Debased: falling for the animal
Abortion  Murder  immoral
Drinking a lot  Lose intellect  Remove condition of possibility of acting morally
In the ethical sphere you have:
Duties towards yourself: Preservation, Perfection, Inspection
Duties towards the others: Love, Respect
Duties towards oneself: absolutely forbidden: homosexuality, suicide…
Drinking in a moderate way is not recommended but is not a moral fault
Duties as an intellect: perfect your intelligence and perfect your moral stance
Ex: philosopher uses mathematics and physics  studies them
Cultivate your intelligence: your understanding of things
Should you be stingy? The animal takes priority when you’re stingy  You shouldn’t be stingy
Should you be servile? Using humanity to get something  immoral
Duties towards the others:
1. Make the end of the other your end: love: benevolence when you love your neighbor as
yourself/beneficence when you help your neighbor as if he’s yourself
Mutual help should be a law, not exceptional help (when in need you desire to be helped, but
you should also help when others need you)
 Benevolence and beneficence are categorical imperatives
If your parents tell you to be a doctor, they are imposing an end on you
No one can impose anything on you, you can resist and choose your end
2. Make the other your end: respect
Don’t use/humiliate them
Should we humiliate a criminal? You can punish him, imprison him, but not humiliate him
according to the law of humanity
Ethical sphere: God and his consciousness will punish him
In ethics, the permissible is recommended but cannot be determined
Ethics: do what will improve your intelligence (but what improves my intelligence???)
 This choice is up to me  In accordance with ethics recommendation
Morality is obligatory, ethics is optional (but of course validated by morality)
Praying????? (01:11)
When you fast, you dominate over your animal power (ascetism). You reinforce your will to
apply the moral law
 Private Right
Coherence of concept of duty ?????
Conditions of morality: coherence of concept of duty: Persons, pure reason, paradise
Actions that you do and are not acceptable are moral faults (Lying, stealing, homosexuality)
Killing or stealing a car is a moral fault and a crime
Ethics: between permissible actions, choose ones that bring you closer to morality  actions
that reinforce intelligence, moral sense and will keep you healthy and pure
Why life has a value? You practice morality
However, if you have to choose between life and morality, always choose morality
Morality is the ground of our practical life
Ethics is the commandment to lead a beautiful life
Righteous life is another sphere
If you sign a contract and don’t deliver, it is a crime
Not all faults are crime
If you kill someone it is directly a crime because you’re taking a life
Crimes are faults that hinder the freedom of the other
What is the source of all obligations? Not my parents, not my friends, not the nation, but myself
How can I oblige myself? If I act on the ground of pure reason
Who can oblige me to act on the ground of pure reason? Myself
We are only obliged towards pure reason and the moral law, but we are free when I act on the
ground of the moral law  we are obliged towards freedom and his freedom
When we respect his freedom, we respect his respect to the moral law  we respect the moral
law, which we are obliged to respect
Righteousness (the law of right) would be the respect of the freedom of the other as long as the
freedom of the other respects all the other’s freedom
We’re all equal in front of the law because we have the same rationality and relate to it the same
way.  We are only equal when we are free  To be free is to be equal
As free agents, we have to respect our equality
If I go to an island where no one is there, I can stay there and I have an ethical duty to make it
better and make my life better
Before someone comes and lives in my house, I was free to live in my room and my bed, but
now someone else is using it so I can’t use it anymore, I’m not free to use it anymore, hence
he’s contradicting my freedom and doesn’t have the right to do so.
Private property is when you negate the freedom of everyone in relation to a thing that only you
can use. The object is only usable when we can use it without contradicting the moral law.
Private property is generated by the suspension of the freedom of the other.
What makes your car your property? The fact that no one else can use it
It is simply an agreement that I’m the only one who can use this object.
If you use it without telling me, the crime is that you are going against my will and not because
you’re damaging my house, even if you make it better. You need my permission to use it.
My body is not usable in the first place in order to be the locus of an agreement of exclusive
use.
When I walk, I don’t use my body since my body is doing something for me.
It is a fault to use someone’s body since I’m doing something for the body.
Can you sell your blood or body organs? No since you don’t own it in the first place. You can
only donate under the condition that you’re benefitting someone
Colonization is not righteous since you’re taking the land of people who have the land.
When you sign a contract, you give a promise, what happens when you break it? It is a crime
since I infringed on the freedom of the other. I obliged him to work on the ground of a false
promise. If he knew I wouldn’t pay him, he wouldn’t have worked. The false promise is a fault,
but the fact that I made him do things against his will is a crime.
When someone says that he will force me not to lie, he is only speaking for the moral law.
When someone says you have to respect the contract, he is just reminding you that you have to
respect your own self, meaning your own morality. This is why I’m obliged to respect the
contract.
Signing contracts is only between free people, people who respect pure reason and the moral
law.
A contract is an obligation towards another to perform an action in return for another obligation
to perform an action. It is between equivalents and between people who are equal.
If you sign a contract for sexual services, this is prostitution, it is illegal and a moral fault. It is
not a contract since you’re asking this person to be a thing, and if he’s a thing is he still free?
No  not a contract
When it comes to marriage, I need a contract for a service for the whole person, not a sexual
service only. Inside the contract, I have to take care of her food, her clothes, her mental health,
her emotional health, etc… and among them the sexual needs. It is a commitment for a full
service. When you honor a person, you need to honor all his needs since the beginning till the
end  can’t divorce/marry someone else/ or even honor two persons (my will owns your
services exclusively, so if you give your service to someone else, you’re going against my will,
so it’s a crime
Difference between selling tomatoes and marriage  giving services to many people Vs one
person
Sex preserves the species, so you are recommended to have children.
If one person can’t have kids, can both people have sex? Yes since it preserves the relationship
between them
 Private Right (2)
Pure reason (expressed in the moral law) is the ground of all morality, ethics, and justice
If you want to act in the right, moral, ethical way, you have to act in a way that is universal
meaning in a way which is grounded on pure reason  reason is practical since I can determine
the my will on the ground of pure reason. I can tell myself what to do by just considering the
coherence of the concepts. My friend is a persona since he is wearing the mask of friendship.

Golden rule: Do to the other what you want them to do to you.

The concept of friendship is the same for both people  my friend wants me to be honest with
him (behave to him following the concept)  The coherence of the concept is the same for both
Following the concept is morality
Reflection/reciprocal ?????????
In Kantianism, are you free when you choose or when you choose not to choose?
When you choose not to have a choice since it’s not up you, you only do what you have to do
In Kantianism, you are free only when you obey the moral law, because you are free from the
freedom of choice (pleasure/pain etc…)
For food to be an end, it should be a means and not an end. Your ends are real ends when they
are means. Can you eat burgers because you love them? Yes. Is it a fault in any way? No.
If you eat a salad because you enjoy it, it is not ethical because you’re not thinking about self-
preservation. Your intention is pleasure. If salads are healthy and preserve your body, then it is
ethical to eat them and enjoy them at the same time. You can have pleasures which are moral.
Smoking is an ethical neglect but not a moral fault. Is smoking a means for the ethical end? No
since smoking is pleasurable and is your end but cannot be a means to another end and preserve
your health.
In Kantianism, you only look at the intention (good-will) and not the consequences.
Introspect?????? (29 mins)
Justice:
We are bound to respect the moral law ie behave on the ground of pure reason (this is an
obligation)  we have a binding obligation to respect the moral law
We have to respect those who respect the moral law
If I see someone cultivating his land, he is acting morally and in a right way. Should I respect
his respect for the moral law? Yes. When I do that, am I respecting his freedom? Yes because
freedom is respecting the moral law. What is binding? The respect of the freedom of the others
because if I don’t, I won’t be respecting the moral law myself. By respecting his respect, I am
respecting the coherence of the concept. However, it is somehow a limitation to my freedom
since I won’t be interfering with the other. In Kantianism, the limitation of your freedom is your
freedom. By accepting not to cross the boundaries of the freedom of the other, you are
respecting the moral law and hence you are free.
If we see someone beating someone, we don’t respect his freedom.
The workmanship theory (John Lock): You acquire something because you worked on it. If you
work on wood and make a bench, the bench is yours because it absorbs your work.
Kant says it is the condition on property but not the form of property. The origin of property is
the
The only binding limitation for other people when it comes to this land is that I’m acting
morally inside this land and this is why they can’t transgress my morality, and have to suspend
their actions when it comes to this land  they can’t use it  it becomes mine.
The limitation of the freedom of the other by the fact that I am free is what generates property.
 Property is the mutual limitations of freedoms
What can be appropriated are objects that are usable freely/morally and that we can use in
general and that will bind the freedom of the others.
Your body is not your property because you can’t use it in the first place.
Same applies for the moon, the sea etc…
Contracts are absolutely binding acts because when you sign a contract, you are promising to
perform an action in return for him to perform an action. Ex delivering tomatoes
Changing my mind is an equivalent of lying.
If you don’t pay me, it is lying and a crime because you went against my freedom
A contract is between two equal free people that understand the implications of the contract
If you sign a contract that is not clear, it is not a contract
If you sign a contract for someone to kill you, is it a contract? You’re not abiding to the moral
law  you’re not free  not a contract
Contracts are only valid between two free agents when it comes to licit services and they are
reciprocal and clear.
In Kantianism, the sexual relation by definition is a relation between objectified bodies
How can you absolve that? Via marriage
The only way to use the other person as a thing is to say by using him as a thing, the purpose is
not sexual satisfaction but servicing him as a person
When you commit to someone to service (for her body) and honor her (for her humanity) fully,
the sexual act is not an end anymore, it becomes a mean to a higher end.
In order to be able to have sex, you need to promise full commitment to her body and soul.
After few years, even if you agree to bring someone to have sex with your wife, you are
breaching the contract and your duty and this is immoral. The 3rd person would be using your
wife as a thing.
Can you all be married? No since you can’t honor both. Only your wife has the duty of
achieving your physical needs. If you are satisfying one and being satisfied, then the other is not
satisfying you. So she’s not doing her part of her duty. The concept of marriage is being
committed reciprocally forever to satisfy all our bodily and spiritual needs. If another person
satisfies my needs, then the first person didn’t satisfy my need and failed the marriage contract.
In the case of sexual pleasure, the other becomes a thing. If your wife goes to dinner with
someone and he satisfies her with food, he’s not using his wife nor is she using him.
Can you have a massage?
My intention: good health
The intention of the person doing massage: provide service using his skills and get money out
of it
It is a contract between two parties, my body is not a thing
It goes bad when your intention is bad and you want massage to feel the hands of the massager
on your body
Your end should be pure to be moral
Surrogate mothers can’t sell their service because they would be selling the activity of their
body. Maybe voluntarily
 Public Right
Punishment in Kant is egalitarian meaning that if you steal a car, we take from you the
equivalent of what you’ve stolen. When you steal, you’re not rational. If you want to reintegrate
rationality, you have to wish that your action which was singular must become universal and
hence everyone must steal you  punishment
Is abortion allowed? You’re only free when you follow the moral law. Given that freedom is
absolutely independent from nature, when you conceive an egg, can you know when freedom
occurs in this thing? You can’t abort if you don’t know when, because the fetus might already
be a rational being
Public right is about conceiving the best possible political regime of governance.
In public right we have constitutional rights and institutional rights
Obviously, the best regime is the one in conformity with the moral law and morality.
John Rawls says that we live in societies where we have many comprehensive doctrines
(Judaism, Christianity, Marxism, Islam, Nazism etc…)
A comprehensive doctrine is a way to conceive the good.
If you bring all representatives of these comprehensive doctrines, each one will fight for his
own. If you favor one, the other comprehensive doctrines get repressed.
To really conceive a rational political system, we need to solve the problem of the multiplicity
of the comprehensive doctrines. If they speak, they will either repress each other or not reach a
consensus.
Political Liberalism same as Secularism
Game (the vail of ignorance): You go into a room and have knowledge of everything except
who you are.
We want to debate if liberty of consciousness is better or government is better.
If you don’t know who you are, what would be the better worst? Should we make a religious
state or a liberal state? You have to choose the option that provides the safer outcome when you
get out of this room. If you choose fundamentalism and you turn out to be an atheist, they will
kill you. If you choose freedom of consciousness and turn out to be a fundamentalist, you can
still be a fundamentalist at home and no one will bother you. A constitution grounded on the
respect of liberties is the most rational constitution.
When it comes to institutional rights, how should we choose the form of the economy and
politics? Welfare or Free Market or Organized Economy? We have to choose systems in a way
where the best off will help the worst off. If you have to choose between a system where
everyone is paid the same or a system where the lowest paid are paid higher than the other
system, you choose this one.
Principle of difference states that the best institutional form would be the one where the most
favored contribute to the least favored automatically by an inner mechanism.
Maximin Rule
It can be any system, as long as it is proven that it respects the principle of difference
What would be the best viable political system if we consider today’s pluralism?
Basic structure defines the limits of applicability of the principle of justice. It tells you what you
should aim for but not exactly how you should realize it.
Two principles?????? (01:08)
Political freedom: you conceive the good the way you want as long as you don’t
infringe/impose your conception on others.
Justice protects the conception of the good and not the conception of the good defines justice.
Justice frames the good means that we will respect your conception of the good as long as it
doesn’t contradict freedom
Definitions:
Moral law: law that states that we should act so that the maxim of our action can hold in the
same time as universal law
Maxim: subjective practical principal that is personal
Pure motivation: incentive based pure reason
Empirical motivation: incentive based on the senses
Duty:
Hypothetical Imperative: representation of the practical necessity of a possible action as a
means to attain something else which one wills
Categorical Imperative: the representation of an objective principle as necessitating the will
Paradise: unearthly pleasure
Property: right against persons when it comes to the use of thing
Contracts: promises for deeds signed between free people
Ethics: the commandment to lead a beautiful life
Ethical action: moral action that is recommended
Crimes: faults that hinder the freedom of the other
Righteousness (the law of right): the respect of the freedom of the other as long as the
freedom of the other respects all the other’s freedom
Private property: a right generated by the suspension of the freedom of the other.
Marriage: a contract for a service for the whole person and to be serviced wholly by this
person
Punishment: justice when one transgresses the moral law
Principle of difference: principle that states that the best institutional form would be the one
where the most favored contribute to the least favored automatically by an inner mechanism

Questions:
How is morality possible?
What is the origin of right?
How can you explain property?
How can you explain contracts?
Why should you get married?

Last question:
Find concrete cases and show how the Kantian system can make these cases solvable or
interesting