"The Metaphysics of Morals"

Doctrine of Right

Here Kant discusses objects and how one comes into possession of Objects. My understanding from the reading is that anything that is a physical enentity (a book, a plot of land, even another person) can be considered an object. First, the relationship between the person and the object in question is important. The person who ha first "dibs", so to speak, on the object is the person who should be recognized as the owner (this is a natural right for Kant). The problem arises when one is away from the object in question. For example, should I set down my book or travel away from my land, what is there to stop someone else from coming alone and claiming that he found the object in question first? Kant's way of rectifying this situation is through a civil constitution, which, while protecting natural rights (lest it be invalid), is a form of common agreement, whereby my objects are recognized as mine, insofar as I concede to recognize the objects of others as theirs.

I'm still a bit confused about Kant's exact definition of a "natural right" as opposed to, I suppose, an unnatural or synthetic right. Is it in any way simple to the way Hume distinguishes between artificial and natural virtues?

Kant goes on to argue that Land is the first thing that people can lay a claim to. All men, according to Kant, begin with a plot of land, in order to nurture themselves, etc. In the Hobbesian state of nature, one can own land, but it is doomed to change hands by force. So for Kant, again, the Civil constitution is necessary to protect rights. My question for Kant would be: Why is there such a need, and even a right to ownership of land? Surely it is NOT natural that a person can own a piece of the earth? It is true that animals will mark their territory, but so far as I have seen they do not assume the right to do what so ever they please with this territory. I am apprehensive as to what Kant would say to Marx, and the ideal that things like property and ownership of land are unnecessary and infringe, rather than enhance, human interaction. Again, I understand that Kant is not so much concerned with consequences, which is why I question the origins and justification for his thoughts. I accept the premise that if everyone adhered to a civil constitution and claimed ownership of land that they first claimed or inherited, this does not created a contradiction. However, it does seem to be a contradiction of nature to simply say "I own this LAND (if by land we mean "this piece of the planet upon which I live, from this point on the surface unto the core of the Earth, or at least as far as I can find things with which to live a fulfilling life)."

Moving on, it is apparent that for Kant, all rights and relations center around property, or ownership of objects. Marriage = contract to share objects. Children and parents = no contract necessary, once they can support themselves physically, they are gone. Neither party is in debt to each other.

Kant goes on to discuss a number of things kind of related to property. Money is a simple representation of goods, all and any goods. A book is writing (which is conceptual), that is conceived by an author, who gives permission to a publisher to "speak" for the author via the distribution of a book. Thereby, the author's mandate must be given to the publisher, lest it be an infringement of right. This all seems perfectly logical.

Kant's main point, without summarizing the every detail of the rest of the book is basically this: That human society, in order to function properly needs to adhere to the categorical imperative. In order that this may be the case, we must enter into contracts to ensure that this Categorical Imperative is, in fact upheld. All rights need to be protected, rights are a priori and stem from non-contradiction.