In these days of post-modernism and anti-essentialism actualized within the context of the relatively recent appreciation of the supposed failure of the Enlightenment Project, it is rare to hear terms like "rights," "guarantees" and "freedom." Surprisingly, these very terms are used by Tristram Engelhardt, a most contemporary thinker. Not so surprisingly, these very same terms are used by Immanuel Kant. In what follows, I show how it is that Engelhardt employs the above terms as the criterion for what he advocates as the foundation of bioethics. In doing so, I demonstrate that Engelhardt"s foundation for bioethics, as a morality of mutual respect, is strikingly similar not only in its consequences, but in its basis, to Kant"s civil commonwealth—a society based on right. Finally, after assessing the similarities between Kant and Engelhardt, I address their crucial difference. This difference consists primarily of Kant"s recognition that for there to be peace instead of merely the cessation of war, the move to a content-rich ethic must be made. Whether or not this move can be made successfully brings us to face the role of hope, or its glaring absence, in the foundations of bioethics and ethics alike.¹