Kantianism and Legislation

Abstract

This article defines and analyzes the philosophical pathology the author labels as “Moral Turn”, namely, the assumption that it is possible to address complex socio-economic problems a priori, disregarding what social sciences (especially, economic science) teach about the circumstances of the problem, the predictable consequences of the various institutional arrangements envisageable, etc. Kant’s thinking –with its distinctive disdain of all things empirical- constitutes the likely source of this discourse failure. And contemporary philosophy is abundant in “neokantian” thinkers who are persuaded that “once we discover or formulate the right values, we can recommend concrete laws and institutions [empirical information being thus unnecessary]”. Rawls, for one, argues that his “difference principle” (which orders the promotion of the least advantaged) necessarily entails the desirability of an interventionist-redistributive state, disregarding empirical surveys showing that free markets could achieve this goal more efficiently