The Relationship of Obedience
Kant – initial
Wow, what is there to say about Immanuel Kant, who is such a respected and quoted philosopher?
This is not my first encounter with Kant but it certainly is the most in depth encounter that I have had, to-date. Kant’s vision of the organization of a state was most surprising when considering his views of humanity as wanting to obtain the greatest good. On human nature Kant says: “…I also take into account human nature, which since respect for right and duty remains alive in it, I cannot regard as so immersed in evil that after many unsuccessful attempts, morally practical reason will finally triumph and show it to be lovable”(89). Thus when Kant speaks of democracy as a despotic form of government, I am taken aback. “Democracy in the proper sense of the term, is necessarily a despotism, because it sets up an executive power in which all citizens make decisions about and, if need be, against one (who therefore does not agree); consequently, all who are not quite all, decide, so that the general will contradicts both itself and freedom” (114). Of course, this observation is, at least, in reference to the ability of Rousseau’s general will to force the people to be free. How then can a republican form of government, in which the executive power is separated from the legislative power, be “more bearable under a single person’s rulership than other forms of government are” (115)? I fail to agree with Kant in this respect. Reason would lead one to believe that the legislative would be less likely to be separated from the executive in a monarchy. How can a monarchy, with representatives, be anymore representative than a democracy? Especially when Kant admits that tyranny of the ruler is not to be opposed, for rebelling is the worst danger of a society (79). I would then propose: what is worse, the general will that forces men to be free or the subjugation to obey a tyrannical ruler?
In this respect, Kant is completely transparent in his primary support for a federation of states. Kant knows that the possibility for war is always possible when there is not a supreme chain of power associated with the organization. A federation “prevents war and curbs the tendency of that hostile inclination to defy the law, though there will always be constant danger of their breaking loose” (118). Kant’s true belief, as the ultimate end is a universal nation of nations, a “world republic.” (117)
Reason can provide lawlessness, which consists solely of war, than that they give up their savage (lawless) freedom, just as individual persons do, and, by accommodating themselves to the constraints of common law, establishing a nation of peoples that (continually growing) will finally include all the people of the earth. But they do not will to do this because it does not conform to their idea of the right of nations, and consequently they discard in hypothesis what is true in thesis (117)
Wow, what is there to say about Immanuel Kant, who is such a respected and quoted philosopher?
This is not my first encounter with Kant but it certainly is the most in depth encounter that I have had, to-date. Kant’s vision of the organization of a state was most surprising when considering his views of humanity as wanting to obtain the greatest good. On human nature Kant says: “…I also take into account human nature, which since respect for right and duty remains alive in it, I cannot regard as so immersed in evil that after many unsuccessful attempts, morally practical reason will finally triumph and show it to be lovable”(89). Thus when Kant speaks of democracy as a despotic form of government, I am taken aback. “Democracy in the proper sense of the term, is necessarily a despotism, because it sets up an executive power in which all citizens make decisions about and, if need be, against one (who therefore does not agree); consequently, all who are not quite all, decide, so that the general will contradicts both itself and freedom” (114). Of course, this observation is, at least, in reference to the ability of Rousseau’s general will to force the people to be free. How then can a republican form of government, in which the executive power is separated from the legislative power, be “more bearable under a single person’s rulership than other forms of government are” (115)? I fail to agree with Kant in this respect. Reason would lead one to believe that the legislative would be less likely to be separated from the executive in a monarchy. How can a monarchy, with representatives, be anymore representative than a democracy? Especially when Kant admits that tyranny of the ruler is not to be opposed, for rebelling is the worst danger of a society (79). I would then propose: what is worse, the general will that forces men to be free or the subjugation to obey a tyrannical ruler?
In this respect, Kant is completely transparent in his primary support for a federation of states. Kant knows that the possibility for war is always possible when there is not a supreme chain of power associated with the organization. A federation “prevents war and curbs the tendency of that hostile inclination to defy the law, though there will always be constant danger of their breaking loose” (118). Kant’s true belief, as the ultimate end is a universal nation of nations, a “world republic.” (117)
Reason can provide lawlessness, which consists solely of war, than that they give up their savage (lawless) freedom, just as individual persons do, and, by accommodating themselves to the constraints of common law, establishing a nation of peoples that (continually growing) will finally include all the people of the earth. But they do not will to do this because it does not conform to their idea of the right of nations, and consequently they discard in hypothesis what is true in thesis (117)
posted by Holly at 8:33 AM
<< Home