Immanuel Kant: Political Philosophy

Introduction

While studying a political philosopher, always keep in mind his personal life experiences & socioeconomic and political conditions of the time he was living. Both have a deep impact on the ideas he expounds.

Immanuel Kant is no exception

Immanuel Kant: His Life

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804, Königsberg, a university town in Prussia) was born into an artisan family of modest means. The strict religiosity of his parents and the religious schools he had to attend made him averse to formal religion, devoted to studies

Immanuel Kant: His Time

Kant was the product of five revolutions; the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution. Both France and the UK were starting their colonisation. It was an age of exploration

C. Core Ideas of Kant’s Political Philosophy

1. Freedom-Main Basis of the State
2. Social Contract
3. Republics and Democracy
4. Rebellion and Revolution
5. Scientific Racism
6. Perpetual Peace

A. Freedom-Main Basis of the State

According to Kant, there are three principles underlying the basis of the state

1. FREEDOM of every member of the state as a human being.
2. EQUALITY of each with every other as a subject.
3. INDEPENDENCE of every member of a commonwealth as a citizen

Out of these three principles, he regards freedom as the most important basis of the state. To him, “Freedom is the only innate right, independence from being constrained by another’s choice, insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other person under a universal law.”

To Kant, Freedom is the autonomous right of all individuals to conceive of happiness in their own way. Interference with another’s freedom is coercing others to be happy as the former sees fit. Each may pursue happiness as they see fit provided this pursuit doesn’t infringe upon others

Rejecting other reasons, even the welfare of citizens, he argues that the state cannot legitimately impose any particular conception of happiness upon its citizens. To do so would be treating citizens as children, assuming they are unable to understand what is useful or harmful for them

He argues that although universally sought by human beings, happiness, defined as the agreeableness of life when things go according to one’s wishes and desires, is not specific enough to become the basis of the pure principle of the state

Hence the kind of freedom Kant is concerned with is individual freedom of action, which is to be respected, allowing it to be effective in determining actions. He calls political freedom, or “independence from being constrained by another’s choice”, the only innate right.

What about the criticism that the very existence of a state might seem to some as a limitation of freedom since a state possesses the power to control the external freedom of individual citizens through force?

To this, Kant quickly replies that there is no innate right to unlimited freedom but only an innate right to freedom “insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other by a universal law.” Thus, for Kant, the rightful freedom of each individual is limited.

Maintaining that the state is not an impediment to freedom but is the means for freedom, Kant argues that any state action is not a hindrance to freedom if it is aimed at hindering actions that themselves would hinder the rightful freedom of others and thus stop its wrongful use

The amount of freedom lost by the first subject through direct state coercion is equal to the amount gained by the second subject through lifting the hindrance to action. It sustains the maximum amount of freedom consistent with identical freedom for all without reducing it.

Similarly, the principle of equality implies formal equality; each member of the state is equal to every other member of the state before the law. Each has the equal coercive right, that is, the right to invoke the power of the state to enforce the laws on one’s behalf.

Formal equality is perfectly compatible with inequality of members of the state in income, physical power, mental ability, etc. Further, this equality supports equality of opportunity: every office or rank must be open to all without regard for any hereditary or similar restrictions

2. Social Contract Theory of Kant

Although Kant believes in the social contract as the legitimate basis for a ruler to rule, he does not consider it a historical event to prove the existence of a social contract having been concluded between the sovereign and the people.

In fact, to Kant, it can be dangerous to the stability of the state to even search history for such empirical justification. The current state must be understood, regardless of its origin, to embody the social contract and the sovereign must recognize the “original contract” as an idea of reason

Consequently, accepting the social contract as a given fact, a sovereign must “give his laws in such a way that they could have arisen from the united will of a whole people and to regard each subject, insofar as he wants to be a citizen as if he has joined in voting for such a will”.

For Kant, the social contract reflects reason, each human being is a rational being. These two are enough justification for the existence of a social contract. As such, individuals may be forced into civil conditions against their consent i.e., to accept the existence of a social contract

Are individuals then coerced to recognize their subjection to state power against their will? It depends on defining” Will”. Since Kant defines “will” as “practical reason itself”, the answer for him is “no.” If one defines “will” as an arbitrary choice, then the answer is “yes.”

Kant holds that individuals can be coerced to leave the state of nature & enter a civil condition since both, the state of nature & social contract, are ideas of reason, which means individuals are rightfully subject to the coercive power of the state regardless of any explicit consent on their part.

3. Kant’s views about Republic and Democracy

Kant’s political philosophy, being essentially a legal doctrine, rejects any alternate foundations for the state except the union of men under the law. The state is constituted by laws. “A regime can be judged by no other.

As Kant asserts again and again, “A regime can be judged by no other criteria nor be assigned any other functions, than those proper to the lawful order as such.” Does it mean he favours a democratic state with voting rights for the general public?

One might expect from this emphasis that Kant would insist that a proper political system is one that not only allows individuals to think for themselves about political issues but also contains mechanisms such as voting to translate those well-reasoned opinions into state policy.

Kant classifies governments into two dimensions:

1. Form of sovereignty-who rules
2. Form of government-how he rules)

In the first category, Kant identifies three traditional forms:

1. rule by one person (Monarchy)
2. rule by a small group of people(aristocracy)
3. rule by all people (Democracy)

He opposed “democracy,” which at his time meant direct democracy, believing that majority rule posed a threat to individual liberty. He stated,

“...democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which all’ decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, ‘all,’ who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom.”

Accordingly, he favours mixed government as the most ideal form of governance, which combines elements of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy, ostensibly making impossible their respective degenerations, which are conceived as anarchy, oligarchy, and tyranny

However, for Kant, more important than the form of sovereignty is the “form of government” concerning how those people rule. Here Kant offers a variation on the traditional good/bad dichotomy: either republican or despotic.

By “republican,” Kant means “separation of the executive power (the government) from the legislative power”. Despotism emerges when these powers are combined into one; the same ruler both gives and enforces laws, in essence making an individual's private will into the public will.

Thus, for Kant, any government is a republic where the executive power enforces only laws that representatives of the people, not the executive itself, make. It means a republic is compatible with a single individual acting as a legislator, provided that others act as executives

Interestingly, for Kant, the republican government need not require actual participation of the people in making the laws, even through elected representatives, as long as the laws are promulgated with the whole united will of the people in mind.

Though insistence on the representative system is not insistence on an elected representative system, Kant holds that such an elective representative system is ideal. Whether elected or unelected, the person holding legislative power is representative of the people as a whole

Kant’s state, then, does not require that actual decisions be made by the people at large, even through elected representatives. He holds that a single individual or small group can adequately represent the people at large simply by adopting their point of view.

When Kant discusses voting for representatives, he adheres to many of the prevailing prejudices of the time. The right to vote requires “being one’s own master,” and hence having property or some skill that can support one independently.

Accordingly, Kant leaves women out of the voting population for what he calls “natural” reasons. They are deemed “passive” citizens of the state who nonetheless enjoy all other rights associated with freedom and equality to help make them “active” citizens

Such a Republican state, Kant claims, is prone to avoid war because, when the consent of the people is needed, they will consider the costs they must endure in a war (fighting, taxes, destruction of property, etc.), whereas a non-republican ruler may be insulated from such concerns

4. Rebellion and Revolution

Although Kant over-emphasises Freedom as the basis of the state, he is very particular about its limits; it should not hinder the freedom of others, and more importantly, it should not destabilise the system as a whole

That’s why the very idea of a right to rebel against the government is unacceptable to Kant, who firmly believes that the existing state is the embodiment of all rights. Replacing it by violent means such as revolution or rebellion is not justified

However, Kant doesn’t mean that any existing state is always completely just or that merely by having power, the state could determine what justice is. He is favouring an existing state simply because replacing it with violent means is going back to the state of nature.

To Kant, a rightful condition, the opposite of the state of nature, is possible only when there are some means for individuals to be governed by the “general legislative will,” and the state embodies the general legislative will better than no state (the state of nature)

Kant maintains that a rightful condition requires the centralizing of coercive power in the state as the only means of bringing about reciprocal coercion, obligation, and the objective settlement of disputes. A right to rebel means that a person must be authorized to resist the state.

This authorization for people to rebel is an exercise of sovereign power, and any people who claim such a right would be claiming that it (the people) rather than the state embodies sovereign power. This is a contradiction.

According to Kant, a strict legalist, the nature of sovereignty is such that sovereign power cannot be shared. If it was shared between the state and the people, then when a dispute arose between them, who would judge whether the state or the people were correct?

While the people cannot rebel against the state, Kant does not insist that citizens always obey the state. He allows at least passive civil disobedience. Citizens are still allowed to voice their grievances through the use of public reason

This passive civil disobedience comes in two forms: in a republican representative system, there can be “a negative resistance, that is, a refusal of the people (in parliament) to accede to every demand the government puts forth as necessary for administering the state”.

By this, Kant means the use of the power of the legislature to refuse to fund, and therefore approval, of the actions of the executive. He clarifies that the legislature is not allowed to dictate any positive action to the executive, its legitimate resistance is only negative.

A second form of acceptable resistance applies to individuals. Kant mentions that citizens are obligated to obey the sovereign “in whatever does not conflict with inner morality”.

He does not elaborate on the term “inner morality”.In an election, sovereignty is passed back to the people, so there is nothing wrong with the people replacing the entire government. Without an election (or a similar method of designating the return of sovereignty to the people), any action for replacing the government is wrong.

Interestingly, Kant does not always reject the actions of revolutionaries. If a revolution is successful, citizens have as much obligation to obey the new regime as they had to obey the old one. Since the new regime is in fact a state authority, it now possesses the right to rule

5. Kant’s Theory of Perpetual Peace

One of the most lasting contributions of Kant in political philosophy is his concept of bringing perpetual peace through universal democracy and international cooperation, & his belief that this could be the culminating stage of world history

Kant, 71 years old, was reflecting on the bloody aftermath of the French Revolution of 1789 and the numerous Revolutionary wars between France and various European powers, including Austria and Kant’s Prussia. Indeed, Prussia had been engaged in wars for most of Kant’s life.

Kant believed that universal history led to the ultimate world of republican states at peace. However, for this peace to last, it must have a solid foundation. To this end, Kant drafted six preliminary articles aimed at reducing the chance of war. These include

1. not making peace treaties while secretly plotting war
2. forbidding annexing another state
3. interfering in its internal affairs
4. abolishing standing armies/arms race
5. The limitation of foreign debt
6. forbidding acts of war so heinous they prevent future peace.

Besides these six articles to limit war, Kant outlines three further articles that establish the domestic rights of citizens within a state, the rights of states in an international community, and the cosmopolitan rights of all individuals (including stateless) as global citizens

In setting out these articles, Kant articulates a view known as “democratic peace theory,” which holds that democratic states:

1. are less likely to go to war
2. less likely to go to war with other democratic states
3. help to create a more peaceful international system.

Kant also maintains that for perpetual peace, every state must become “republican”, a representative democracy, based on the idea of each citizen as a free, equal and independent co-legislator of the state’s legislative functions through their elected representatives.

Another of Kant’s interesting ideas is the “federalism of free states”. Believing that in the international sphere, states exist in a state of nature, with no greater power to adjudicate disagreements, they should enter a union of states. But what form that union should take is unclear.

6. Kant’s Scientific Racism

Kant was one of the most notable Enlightenment thinkers to defend racism, and some have claimed that he was one of the central figures in the birth of modern scientific racism who produced a fully developed theory of race.

Using the Four Temperaments of ancient Greece, Kant proposed a hierarchy of four racial categories:

1. White Europeans
2. Yellow Asians
3. Black Africans
4. Red Amerindians.

Kant wrote that “Whites] contain all the impulses of nature in effects and passions, all talents, all dispositions to culture and civilization and can as readily obey as govern. They are the only ones who always advance to perfection.”

Kant describes South Asians as “educated to the highest degree but only in the arts and not in the sciences”. Hindustanis can never reach the level of abstract concepts and a “great Hindustani man” is one who has “gone far in the art of deception and has much money”.

About black Africans, Kant wrote that “they can be educated but only as servants, that is they allow themselves to be trained”. He quotes David Hume as challenging anyone to “cite a [single] example in which a Negro has shown talents.”

Kant asserts that, among the “hundreds of thousands” of blacks transported during the Atlantic slave trade, even among the freed “still not a single one was ever found who presented anything great in art, science, or any other praiseworthy quality”.

Considering Native Americans as far below the Negros,Kant opined, “ Amerindians cannot be educated”. He calls them unmotivated, lacking effect, passion and love, describing them as too weak for labour, unfit for any culture, and too phlegmatic for diligence.

Opposing miscegenation, Kant believes that whites would be “degraded as the fusing of races” is unnatural and undesirable, for “not every race adopts the morals and customs of the Europeans”. He believed that in the future, all races would be extinguished, except for the whites.

Kant was also an antisemite, believing that Jews were incapable of transcending material forces, which a moral order required. In this way, Jews are the opposite of autonomous, rational Christians, and are therefore incapable of being incorporated into an ethical Christian society.