Revolution: Locke vs Kant

Who gives the best account of revolution, Locke or Kant?

The writings of Locke on the subject of revolution in his second treatise of government were one of the founding and seminal texts on the “right” of a populace to resist the power of the state if a government was to overstep its defined power and become an unjust tyranny. Kant, however, took what could be labelled a surprising view for a republican and made the denial of the logical and legal coherence of this “right”, as well as the potential harm caused by the rejection of what Kant saw as an individual's moral duty in maintaining the rule of law by the preservation of a government. This essay aims to examine the arguments put forward by both thinkers, draw out their key foundations and assess their coherence with the component parts of their arguments, as well as their wider philosophy. It is my conclusion that whilst Locke's stance on the matter clearly stems from his key ideological tenets of inalienable individual rights and the duty of self preservation, Kant's argument sits uneasily with his stance on moral autonomy, as well as leaving certain areas (such as the right to resist on the grounds of injustice) untouched, and thus is lacking in both scope and coherence when placed in comparison to the writings of Locke.

In order to answer the question set, we must first set out concrete and testable definitions for the terms in the question – primarily how we can ascertain which of the accounts is “best” and indeed, a meaning of “account” that can apply equally to both philosophers' arguments. What do we mean by “best”? The term in itself necessitates the potential for one argument to be “better” when the two are in conflict - philosophically would entail that one ...

... middle of paper ...

...o be an unbearable abuse of supreme authority” or in the face of governmental tyranny. However, Kant also outlines in his other work the importance of moral autonomy, which seems to betray his view of a citizen's duty to obey. As Arntzen states: “by denying a right of resistance even when civil society falls short of the ideal civil society, he maintains that one has a duty to act according to a will that is not one's own, and thereby seems to betray the person's autonomy and dignity he has so strongly asserted in GMS and KpV” (Arntzen: 1996). Arntzen then goes on to state that Kant must allow

To conclude, then, the central premises of Locke's philosophy in our duty to preserve the lives of ourselves and others as god's creations and property, as well as our moral equality through our inalienable rights as individuals shines through in his writings on revolution.