Kant’s Practical Dilemma in On the Disagreement between Morals and Politics in Relation to Perpetual Peace
In Appendix 1 of Kant’s Political Writings, Kant addresses the dilemma of reconciling theories of political moralism with theories of political realism (i.e., between morals and politics) to achieve perpetual peace in practice. Kant explains that perpetual peace can only be reached through reason, as opposed to coercion or political expediency: “there can be no half measures here; it is no use devising hybrid solutions such as a pragmatically conditioned right halfway between right and utility” (125). The crux of his argument on the relationship between politics and morals is characterized by the claim “all politics must bend the knee before right” such that he asserts priority of morals over strategic advantage in politics (125). He further cautions against deference to practical rather than moral ends which will be discussed in greater detail later. For Kant, ideally, politics should be an application of morality and therefore no conflict can exist between politics and morality. However I will show that two problems of his stance (regarding practical applicability and universality) arise because of man’s subjectivity and natural tendencies.
To further explain his argument, Kant distinguishes between a moral politician and a political moralist as a metaphor for the relationship of morals and politics. The moral politician is held as an exemplar because he practices within the bounds of morals. He is "someone who conceives of the principles of political expediency in such a way that they can co-exist with morality (118)." On the other hand, the political moralist is considered villainous because he is selective when it co...
... middle of paper ...
...factors of human nature and shape its maxims according to them.
Thus, after considering Kant’s discussion of perpetual peace, political moralism and political realism are incompatible in reality. While Kant may have made a compelling case that a conflict does not occur in theory between morality and politics, a conflict does remain when it comes to man’s subjectivity. For one reason, not all politicians will adhere to morality publicly and thus will not enter into a collective unity to attain perpetual peace. Another reason is that Kant’s idealistic theory is too divorced from the reality of the political realm and thus cannot be applied universally.
References
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. On the Disagreement between Morals and Politics in Relation to
Perpetual Peace’, in Kant’s Political Writings, ed. H Reiss. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1970.
The Ancient-Modern debate focuses on the true definition of happiness and how one can fully attain it. It’s main principles encompass the following: The relationship between morality and politics, the purpose of politics, technical activity/necessary knowledge that one beholds, and human nature. According to the ancient view morality and virtue play the central role in ones conduct of their political and private affairs, and both Socrates’ and Boethius’ view is that in order to be an effective ruler one must be morally good; Plato believed that Philosophers were worthy rulers as well. While the modern view separates morality from politics and claims that there is no correlation between the two. Unlike Boethius, Machiavelli states that a person does not and should not be moral in order to be a ruler and if they are moral and righteous they will fail at being a successful leader.
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
Johnson, R. (2013). Kant’s moral philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). Zalta, E. (Ed.). Retrieved online from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-moral/
Aristotle’s virtuous person and Kant’s moral worth have two different meanings. Kant and Aristotle, from different times, have different ways of looking at what makes people make the best decisions. Coming from different sides of ethics in Deontology and virtue ethics, they agree and disagree with each other as most other schools of ethical thought do as well. After stating both their positions, I will prove that Kant’s view of morality is more correct than Aristotle’s view of the person.
Recent literature has aimed to reconcile the content of Kant and Aristotle’s work on morality, or at least, to compare the theories as though they are contending. However, I shall argue that the two philosophers are answering intrinsically different questions. If two philosophers operate within a precise domain of philosophy, it can be tempting to assess their distinct arguments as disagreeable with the other. However, in some cases, their arguments may be aimed at responding to different questions. In such instances, endeavors to reconcile or compare the fabricated ‘opposition’ between two arguments can be unproductive and perplexing, ...
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
Kant, a famous philosopher, in his essay imagines a state of perpetual peace. Different than temporary peace, perpetual peace, by definition is peace that lasts forever. Kant argues that perpetual peace is that all conflicts between states are addressed, that not only the present conflicts shall be resolved, but also future conflicts would not occur at all. That is to say, instead of the end of a particular war, states need to end the “state of war”, or I comprehend as the tendencies to initiate wars. Although perpetual peace seems to be fairly ideal imagination, Kant gives certain conditions to be met in order to reach perpetual peace, which he defines as “preliminary articles” and “definitive articles”.
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
O’Neill, Onora. “Kantian Ethics.” A Companion to Ethics. Ed. Peter Singer. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 175-185. Print.
1) Feldman, Fred. ‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198.