A synthesis of Kantian ethics and Rousseauvian General Will in justifying the moral ground of political laws

This article explores the Kantian and Rousseauvian solutions to the conflict between autonomy and authority. It discusses how categorical imperatives (CI) are the supreme source of legitimate authority for a limited number of political laws, and how Rousseau's General Will (GW) can justify political laws more broadly. The article also references Hart and Rawls to show that all political laws are binding within the limits of injustice and have some moral foundation. The limits of authority on debatable laws (e.g., banning abortion) are discussed, along with an analysis of the possibility of GW using Condorcet's theorem. The conclusion is that GW cannot fully justify political laws based on majoritarian direct democracy due to problematic assumptions, though it may improve the current US legislative procedure.

Shuyang Lin