Immanuel Kant

For his entry in History of Political Philosophy, Pierre Hassner, focuses on Immanuel Kant. As Kant is one of the most important philosophers of the modern age, this essay is one of the longer parts of Strauss and Cropsey’s book. One of the first things to remember about Kant’s political philosophy is that he rarely commented on politics directly, instead he indirectly dealt with it through another medium. Still, there are some common themes in Kant’s work, the two most important of these are republican government and international organization, or to put these terms into more Kantian language, a doctrine based on the rule of law and of eternal peace.

Much of Kant’s work is dealing with addressing several tensions. In particular Kant is focused on three of these tensions. These tensions are as follows: 1) between science and morality, 2) modern physics and its moral consequences, and 3) universal determinism and universal will. In order to deal with these tensions Kant radicalizes them by dividing the world up into two parts. The first part is the world of phenomena, which are things in their appearance. The second part is the world of noumena, which are things as they are in themselves. The world of phenomena is what science can know while the world of noumena is opened up to morality. As a result of this move, morality is thus known without any experience and happiness and virtue become separated. Though these two worlds are separate, they are not absolutely separate as there are ways in which they meet, namely in law, history, and politics.

Another important aspect of Kant’s political philosophy is his ideas on the rights of man, which he draws from both Rousseau and Hume. From Rousseau, Kant drew his ideas on giving morality precedent over philosophy, of action over contemplation, and of practical reason over pure reason, which ultimately means that all people are of equal worth. From Hume on the other hand, Kant drew his ideas on the critique of dogmatism. Another important part of Kant’s theory here is his distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. According to Kant, analytic judgments are known by the proposition in and of itself while synthetic judgments are not. What this does is allow Kant to push the is/ought distinction even further than Hume did. What this means is that because for Kant, human rights are known analytically, from this we know that all humans have equal dignity. Thus, all humans have a duty to treat all other humans in a certain respect. The fact that this equal dignity isn’t always manifested in reality is for Kant irrelevant.

This brings us to the first of what Kant calls the categorical imperative, which Kant uses to make moral judgments. In essence, the inherent equality of humans requires that an act be universalized, in other words only morally acceptable if all were doing it. This leads to the second categorical imperative, the idea that all people must be treated as an end rather than as a mean. Relating to this is what Kant calls the kingdom of ends, which all people, by virtue of them being rational creatures are a part. Kant’s theory on morality causes him to elevate good will, seeing that the classical virtues of courage, moderation, and intelligence can be dangerous when not accompanied by good will. In this scheme, good will and justice essentially become equated. It also should be noted that for Kant, there are three commends of justice. Those commands are as follows: 1) treat others and demand to be treated as an end, 2) harm no one, and 3) enter into a society in which the property of each one can be guaranteed against the others.

One important thing to remember when working with Kant is the tension that develops between the freedom Kant allows in his political doctrine and in the strictness of his moral doctrine. This creates another tension as many existing laws go against both Kant’s moral as well as his political doctrine and there appears to be no way to solve this tension without violating either Kant’s moral or Kant’s political doctrine. In order to solve this problem Kant ultimately subjugates his politics to his morality. Furthermore, Kant also pushes for a general condition in which these two concepts can come together. In order to do this, Kant turns to the philosophy of history, as it is in this which Kant roots people’s growing knowledge of the moral law. The philosophy of history is to both interpret the past as well as give us hope for the future. Kant tends to view this in mechanical terms, rather than as the result of human action. Through the philosophy of history, the moral ideal and reality will eventually be united. Thus, the philosophy of history is a way in which our moral ideals can be reconciled with the reality with which we are currently dealing. One thing that is interesting about Kant is that he does have an understanding of the possibility of the progress of civilization without moral progress, thus creating another source of tension. Still, is often forced to make two separate judgments, a judgment by history and a judgment by morality. It should be noted that this tension is eased somewhat by the fact that history has a tendency to do away with moral imperfections.

Kant’s ideal state is to be rooted in the law, and that law is to be both universal and abstract. This is where another source of tension between Kant’s moral theory and Kant’s political theory can be found as in order for a state to exist in freedom, the state must be divorced from both happiness and morality (hence the law being universal and abstract). Once however freedom has been established, that state would eventually produce the happiest and most moral results. Consent is also a major focus for Kant in establishing freedom. On Kant’s theory of the state, it is important to remember that he forgoes the traditional distinction of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, instead focusing on judicial, executive and legislative powers. For Kant, despotism occurred when these powers are brought to close together.

We will now turn our attention to the most famous of Kant’s political ideas, his ideas on the perpetual peace. In sort, the doctrine holds that republican forms of government are less likely to go to war, so as the number of republican governments grow, a more stable and lasting peace will be created on the earth. Still Kant’s writings on this subject do warrant more attention as on one level, Kant recognizes that his perpetual peace may only be seen as an ideal, not as something actually attainable. Yet, Kant is also practical enough not to suggest creating a universal state in order to attain this peace, or at least not until there has been enough moral progress to make such an ideal workable. Thus, Kant is never able to make it exactly clear if he means for his to be taken only as an ideal or as something to be implemented. Though Kant does separate the two concepts, his idea here does appear to require concurrent civilizational and moral progress. Regardless, Kant does see several elements of society as pointing to this direction. One of the most important of these is commerce which Kant sees as a tool which can bring about needed unity. Thus, Enlightenment and the increased cost of war unites to bring about peace.

Kant’s notion of progress though history means that the foundation of the state need not be tied up in the goodness of the people as institutions and individuals can progress separately. Still, these separate notions of progress are not completely isolated from each other as the progress of arts and sciences help people become more refined and accustomed to power, thus preparing them for other kinds of progress. One last thing that needs to be noted on Kant is that though he has a very mechanical understanding of progress in history, freedom is taken out of the mechanical realm.