|
2023 Kant's account of reason. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (major revision, originally 2008) 2022 C Mieth & G Williams. Beyond (non-)instrumentalization: migration and dignity within a Kantian framework. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice 2022 C Mieth & G Williams. Poverty, dignity, and the kingdom of ends. J-W van der Rijt & A Cureton (eds), Human Dignity and the Kingdom of Ends: Kantian Perspectives and Practical Applications (Routledge, 206-223) [preprint here] 2019 The social creation of morality and complicity in collective harms: a Kantian account. Journal of Applied Philosophy 36(3), 457-470 |
|
2012 Between ethics and right: Kantian politics and democratic purposes. European Journal of Philosophy (symposium on Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom), 20(3), 479-486
2012 G Williams & R Chadwick. Responsibilities for health care: Kantian reflections. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21(2), 155–165 2011 Philosophy [with a focus on Kant's essay, Toward Perpetual Peace]. S Krossa (ed), Europe in the Context of Globalisation (Palgrave Macmillan), 50-61 2011 “Intelligible facts”: a constructivist account of action and responsibility. S Baiasu, S Pihlström & H Williams (eds), Politics and Metaphysics in Kant (Wales University Press), 196-214 2007 Judges in our own case: Kantian legislation and responsibility attribution. Journal of International Political Theory 3(1), 8-23 1999 Nietzsche’s response to Kant’s morality. Philosophical Forum 30(3), 201-216 1999 Kant and the question of meaning. Philosophical Forum 30(2), 115-131 |
|
“When legal scholars discuss legal entitlements, they distinguish between what is lawful (quid juris) and what concerns facts (quid facti). They call the first the deduction. We use many empirical concepts without anyone objecting, because we always have experience on hand to prove their objective reality [e.g. ‘blue’ or ’table’]. But there are also usurped concepts, such as fortune and fate, which circulate with indulgence, that are occasionally called upon to establish their claim by the question quid juris? Then there is embarrassment because no one can show an entitlement to using them, neither from experience nor from reason.”
- Kant, Critique of Pure Reason A84 (condensed) |
