Skip to main content Accessibility help

Bona Fama Defuncti in Kant’s Rechtslehre: Some Perspectives

  • Thomas Mertens (a1)


Although Kant’s final work in moral philosophy, Die Metaphysik der Sitten, currently attracts much scholarly attention, there is still a lot to explore. This article is an attempt to get to grips with a particular, often neglected passage of the Rechtslehre, namely §35. Here Kant defends the view that not only can a person’s good reputation can be tarnished after his death, but also that this constitutes a violation of this dead person’s property. Here I will not be able to fully clarify what Kant means when he holds that persons can be harmed after their death, but I will put Kant’s view in a few perspectives.


Corresponding author


Hide All
Aristotle (2009) The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belliotti, Raymond Angelo (2012) Posthumous Harm: Why the Dead are Still Vulnerable. London: Lexington.
Bundesverfassungsgericht (1971) ‘The Mephisto Case’, 30, 173.
Byrd, Sharon B. and Hruschka, Joachim (2010) Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Demarsin, Bert (2011) ‘Let’s Not Talk about Terezin: Restitution of Nazi Era Looted Art and the Tenuousness of Public International Law’. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 37, 117–85.
Dworkin, Ronald (1996) Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dzhugashvili v. Russia (2014) Application no 41123/10.
Epicurus (1994) Letter to Menoeceus. Trans. Hicks, Robert Drew.
Kant, Immanuel (1996) Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Gregor, Mary J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
König, Peter (1999) ‘§§18–31, Episodischer Abschnitt, §§32–40’. In Höffe, Otfried (ed.), Immanuel Kant. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), pp. 133–54.
Legislation Online (2019) ‘Criminal Codes’.
Lubina, Katja (2009) Contested Cultural Property. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press.
Mertens, Thomas (2013) ‘Review of Sharon B. Byrd and Joachim Hruschka, Kant’s Doctrine of Right’. Ethic@. Revista Internacional de Filosofia da Moral, 12, 355–8.
Nozick, Robert (1981) Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Papineau, David (2012) ‘Can we be Harmed After we are Dead?Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18, 1091–4.
Putistin v. Ukraine (2013) Application no 16882/03.
Ripstein, Arthur (2009) Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scarre, Geoffrey (2012) ‘Speaking of the Dead’. Mortality, 17, 3650.
Valeska, David (2016) ‘Insulting a Politician Right After her Death: Does the ECHR Protect the Reputation of the Deceased?’ Strasbourg Observers, 8 February.
Varden, Helga (2010) ‘A Kantian Conception of Free Speech’. In Golash, Deirdre (ed.), Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 3956.
Wisnewski, Jeremy J. (2009) ‘What we Owe the Dead’. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 26, 5470.
Wood, Allen (2002) ‘The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy’. In Timmons, Mark (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 122.
Zwalve, Willem J. and Sirks, Boudewijn (2012) Grundzüge der europäischen Privatrechtsgeschichte. Vienna: Böhlau.


Bona Fama Defuncti in Kant’s Rechtslehre: Some Perspectives

  • Thomas Mertens (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed