Kants Political Ideas in the Modern World - Essay Example

? Kant’s political ideas in the modern world Outline: A. Introduction B. General Discussion Kantian Political Philosophy 2) Kant onwar 3) Political ideas of Kant and the modern individual 4) Kantian Ethics for the modern individuals C. Conclusion Introduction Immanuel Kant is one of the greatest world’s philosophers and he surely defines the main concepts of politics in his creative heritage. On the one hand, Politics determines the relations with other sciences and Kantian ideas can be easily correlated with the different spheres of a human activity. On the one hand, this famous philosopher and an inspired politician can exert an essential influence on the lives of the contemporaries and it is possible to see the influence exerted on an individual, on the whole modern society and the processes, which happening there. Politics was the central point of the Philosophy. This science embodied the whole creative development and reflected the practical wisdom of the humankind. Kant is the most popular for his clear definition of Right and the role it plays in the society. He correlates Politics with the Right and the Right with the Morals. Kant worked at the developments in the field of the Science and the State. The great philosopher talks about Right as the highest moral value and bases the principles of Republic in accordance with the notion of the Natural Right. There is a need to reach the highest moral order in the Republic and the Laws should be an embodiment of the universal rule of justice. Therefore, Kant talks about correlation of Politics and Nature. There is a need to focus on the principles of Politics on the triggering forces of the humanity. In other words, it is relevant to correlate the principles of a natural struggle for the existence with the nature of the social forces. One of his main Doctrines is the following: “the groaning and travailing in pain of the whole creation,’ are consummated, pacified, and stilled in the highest political Good, which is Perpetual Peace realized in a universal Federation of Humanity within which all other human goods—Sociality, Religion, Art, Science—come to perfect flower and fruit” (van der Linden 1988, p. 32). In this claim it is evident that the philosopher reflected the basic principles of political reflections of the eighteenth century. The historical developments and international events led to the developments and a struggle for the principles of liberty, which have been considered in terms of different revolutions (Murphy, 2008). The political principles are resumed and condensed with the philosophical background of the ideas of the great philosophers, such as Aristotle, Locke, Kant and many others. Kant was much focused on the developments of political ideas and his ideals have often remained underdeveloped and fragmentary ones. Kant developed his ideas with the help of the metaphysical method. Kantian Political Philosophy Kant was much focused on both theoretical and practical political philosophy. This great thinker treated Politics as the “metaphysics of morals” (Williams 1992, p. 388). He correlated human behavior with the developments of political philosophy. There is no doubt that an individual is the center and the main creator and developer of different laws and regulations. Kant was much concerned about “anthropology” and took into account the developments in cultural studies. The social and political philosophies of Kant are closely connected. There are two contrasting points in the developments of Kant’s philosophies: on the one hand, it is relevant to refer to the “rules of behavior in regard to free choice”, and on the other hand, it is relevant to take into account “the rule of knowledge” (Williams 1992, p. 240). The Metaphysics of Morals is divided into two main parts: the “Doctrine of Right” and the “Doctrine of Virtue”. The categorical imperative is the central issue for Kant. It should be noted, that this concept is discussed in a separate chapter in the paper further on. Kant considered right as the actions, which may influence other persons. The second claim is that only decisions matter; the third claim concerns there is a need to correlate wants and needs of the agents with their decisions. Right and virtue are opposed within the individual: the former concept concerns the independent actions of the individual and the second concept implies the inner motif for further actions. Therefore, the Political Philosophy of Kant does not rely on the inner triggers only (virtue), it is also based on the outer triggers of the individual (right) (Mandt 1997, p. 593). Kant on war The modern world is full of military conflicts and wars. In order to find the reason of such a socially devastating world, it is relevant to take into account philosophical developments of the famous philosophers. There is a need to find the root of evil and eradicate it in order to make the lives of the contemporaries more favorable and peaceful for mutual coexistence of different people and various nations. Under conditions of the modern globalization processes, the lives of the contemporaries are subjected to numerous external pressures and it is of great importance to find a common point for different people in order to work in the name of harmonious political, social and economic relations. War for Kant was considered as only a defensive measure. To initiate pre-emptive attack was not a defense from his point of view. Nowadays, it is possible to consider the processes of war and military conflicts in the modern civilized world. In his essay Perpetual Peace: a Philosophical Sketch (1795) Kant talks about the republican government and in his later philosophical sketch The Metaphysics of Morals (1797) he discards the ideas of the republican government (Nagel, 1998). In his essay of Perpetual Peace Kant suggests an introduction of the international law and the “League of Nations”, which is focused on settling the international conflicts in the process of negotiations. The Nations in this League will be focused on the protection of the national interests in the name of the legal order all over the world. The central claim of Kant at this point is the concept of humanity. The roles of individuals in the society cannot be denied and they should respect each other and work in the name of the principles of liberty and freedom. There are two basic pillars in his ideas about war: the first one is to focus on the international interests and then take into account the national interests. There is a need to promote negotiations as much as possible and reduce the involvement of military forces. Relations of individuals in the society should be based on reason. The most distinguishing mark of the human condition is the role of reason. The idea of the ‘Ideal of Reason’ should be the leading factor in further human developments. The Republic for Kant was a place, where the people were the authors of laws and the members of the Republic should be bound by reciprocal rights and duties. In spite of the fact that Kant was not a supporter of democracy and showed a tolerant attitude to constitutional monarchy, he was much focused on the important role, which is played by free beings in the republic. The individuals in the society should be aware of their rights and there is no need to prevent them from realization of their potential (Flikschuh, 2000). Reason is the leading trigger for a proper conduct of all other rational beings. Therefore, the rulers of different states should act in compliance with their reason otherwise the states violates the moral law. The principles of morality can be also violated by such kind of states and the desire of all rational beings should be focused on the promotion of the goodness of the state. In case the rulers of the state are not triggered by their reason, such kind of states should not exist at all. On the one hand, it is clearly heard in these words that the despotism should be discarded, but the moral cost may be too high in this case. Moreover, there is a need to counter balance the violence and the threat. Those states, which are imposing their violence on other states and do not develop their politics in accordance with the international laws, should be prevented from further existence, because it is impossible to protect the national interests of the state if they violate the rights of other international states. It is possible to consider war in Iraq from the following perspective: in case there is a despotic manifestation of government in the country. This country is not the republic and it is not a law-abiding member of the League of Nations (Wiarda 2009). This country, where people do not have their rights and the ruling power commits crimes against their nation. The ruling government promotes its own interests and harms the interests of people and there is a need to introduce several reforms to enhance their power. Moreover, this country influences the international law and it is aimed at power enhancement. Let us contrast the power in this country to a larger power. The National League promotes the interests of the countries-members. In accordance with Kant, the Ideal of Reason should dominate over different national interests (Hanninen, 2003). Kant considers the league in the following way: “This league," says Kant, "does not tend to any domination over the power of the state but only to the maintenance and security of the freedom of the state itself and of other states in the league with it, without there being any need for them to submit to civil laws and their compulsion, as men in state of nature must submit. Kant foresaw that if the federation were to become so strong as to enforce peace against aggressor states, it could become a super-state, inevitably overriding the rights of its members” (Long 2005, p. 925). Therefore, it is evident that Kant differs between the strong states and the less powerful states. In case the republic wants to settle its laws or international laws in the despotic country, there is a clear intention of creating favorable conditions for people and their proper levels of living. Therefore, the basic intention of the most powerful state is to promote peace all over the world. The tyrants and fanatics are intimidating individuals for the welfare of the world’s community. From the perspective of Kant, it should be noted that hypothetically the most powerful country should be able to have enough power to promote peace throughout the word. In other words, if to consider the situation of war in Iraq, Kant’s ideas, are supposedly, protecting the State’s intention to remote despotism from Iraq and set Iraqi people free. The United States of America has not reached a total status of republic and there is no a total basis for the Ideal of Reason at all in the policy of the United States. Political ideas of Kant and the modern individual An individual is responsible for his actions. This is the sphere of autonomy. The modern world is full of autonomous individuals. Kant was one of the first developers in the field of autonomy. Kant claims that individuals are free and autonomous. The individual becomes responsible for his actions and is obliged to the moral laws. The status of individuals prevails in the states with the status of self-government. Therefore, different fields of human activity, such as medicine, science, bioethics, education and many others reside on the concept of autonomy developed by Immanuel Kant. There is a good reason for right actions, when an individual depends on himself and can be responsible for his own actions. An individual is the leading subject in the modern world. He can make his own decisions, basing on his experience only. It is possible to sum up the main claims of Kant concerning autonomous nature: “being autonomous means being one’s own person, to be driven by reasons, wishes, spirits, and features that are not simply overlapped externally upon individual, but are component of what can somehow be considered one’s genuine self” (Kant and Deontology). There is the greatest value in the autonomy. The modern individuals really appreciate their independence and they do not follow centennially set moral grounds or the principles of behavior. The individual does not want to abstract one’s mind, but to depend on his own ideas and beliefs. The modern individuals should make an attempt to live in accordance with the good will. In other words, it is relevant to act from duty. To make a good act means to act in spite of consequences of actions. The basis for the actions of the individuals should be developed in accordance with the categorical imperative. Kant claims that if you want to do x, you should do y. There are other actions, which should be made by different individuals per se, which are named the categorical imperative (Bowie, 1999). This categorical imperative outlines the daily activity of the modern individuals under conditions of the global society: An individual should act on maxims in order to act with regards to the universal laws of nature. Different individuals are human beings and it is necessary to respect them and treat them as an end and not as a means only. Every individual in the society should act as if he was “a member of an ideal kingdom of ends in which you were both subject and sovereign at the same time” (Kant and Deontology). It is evident that Kant makes an emphasis on the necessity to be responsible for one’s actions and for one’s choices. On the one hand, in terms of his claims about autonomy, every individual is free and may chose how to act, be moral et cetera. On the other hand, there are deeply rooted social, historical, economic and other principles in the lives of the society, which should be taken into account by the individuals. Moreover, an individual should not impose his templates of behavior on other members of the society. His own reasoning and mind are two basic triggers of the way an individual lives his life (Schmidt 1997, p. 200). In the modern business world, in case an individual follows the philosophical path, suggested by Immanuel Kant, he will be able to be directed by his own reasons and triggers and contribute much to the organization (Tate, 1997). The individual is the center of the modern business world. The same can be said about the individuals as the centre of different spheres and fields of human activity. There is a great benefit, when an individual can rely on himself only and make right and correct decisions without any external influence. Thus, it is possible to correlate the main points of the claims of the categorical imperative in the following way: “So act as if you were a member of an ideal kingdom of ends in which you were both subject and sovereign at the same time” (Kant and Deontology; Hantzes, 2007). Therefore, a Head of any company or organization should rely on his governance decisions. A great role in the modern business world is assigned to the corporate social responsibility. For example, it is possible to regulate the organization and the activities of the company in case an “individual is treated as an end and never as a means merely” (Klikauer). In the result of this claim, employees would perform much better for sure. An individual’s autonomy in this case will be a perfect basis for a right decision-making in the organization. Kantian approach to ethics within any organization can be interpreted in terms of his Four Quadrant Module. Picture 1. Four Quadrant Module (Dinkelaker, 1997). The importance of autonomy and social independence in the modern society cannot be denied. Therefore, Quadrant One positions a free individual as a very important one and he should be provided with an opportunity to reach gains. Quadrant Two underlines the importance of a social development and there is a need for the contemporaries to work in the name of the advantages and benefits of their organizations (it is possible to remember a concept of ‘common good’ at this point) (Day 2002, p. 5). Quadrant three underlines the importance of independence and heteronomy. The individuals should feel an evident support from others in order to determine the most important steps or actions at a given moment of time. Quadrant four emphasizes the importance of autonomy and interdependence (Negretto, 1993). On the one hand, these quadrants are too complicated and challenging and not every individual is able to develop his actions in terms of the main points of these four quadrants. Nevertheless, it is very important for the contemporaries to remember about their individual contribution into the organization (Quadrant One and Two). Moreover, there is a need to underline that in case a “free individual” (Quadrant One) wants to reach “common good” (Quadrant Two), the company will gain much from such kind of intentions (Fleischacker). Kantian Ethics for the modern individuals The principle of Kantian Ethics can be seen in the following statement: “act as if the principle of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature” (Fleischacker). The motif of an action is the determinant trigger of the modern individual’s activities in the world. He claims that it is correct to talk about the motive of decision making and not the coming rewards of the action. Very often money in the modern society is the final goal and every action of the modern individual is often focused on monetary gaining. Money is the integrative component of every field of the human activities. Even religion or charity is often treated as the masks for the real intention of the doer. In other words, different modern businessmen or celebrities appeal for monetary benefits and gains, but they are concealing their actions as if these actions were promoting religion or charity. The personal decision making in the modern world is often mixed up with the goals of the financial benefits gaining. In terms of the Kantian Ethics, every individual is focused on decision making. It is natural of every member of the society to make his own decision independently. Very often people are irritated in case their decisions are influenced by someone else (Shelton, 2000). Every member of the society has his own moral rules and principles and he usually follows them in his daily activities. An individual decision making led to the development of laws and many other regulations, where a man is the central developed of decision making process. It is possible to see the absence of the moral in such kind of laws, as the laws of the Nazi Germany, for example. Therefore, Kant introduces a concept of rationalization in his works and it is very interesting to consider the philosophical developments of the great mind and especially to correlate his ideas with the modern world. Kant is really focused on the essence and the important role of rationalization (Mieszkowski 2006, p. 44). Still, there is an option to contrast law-abiding principles of the individual to his own personal beliefs. It can be interpreted in the following way: an individual follows laws till they do not violate his own personal concerns. Nowadays, the laws of different countries may cause social turmoil and very often individuals prefer living beyond the laws. In order to act in such a way, an individual should be very much focused on his own personal beliefs and concerns and think about the real practical implementation of his skills and knowledge (Bowie, 1999). Conclusion Nevertheless, the ideas of Kant should be appreciated by the contemporaries, because one of the greatest philosophers underlines the importance of a universally accepted practice in the world. The modern individuals have not reached universal moral principles and the norms of behavior. It is necessary to take into account rationalism as the universal practice, because there are global directions in the modern world and the world’s society is being developed in accordance with the principles of the universal rationalism. There is a need for a global or a universal rational mind in the modern global world. There is a need to have a strong moral and rational basis to direct the actions of the contemporaries. Both actions of the individual and the organizations, and the actions of the individual and the state should be correlated with the universal rational mind, suggested by Kant (Williams a,b). On the basis of the suggested modes of behavior in the war, on the basis of the actions for the individuals outlined in their practices at work or in their personal lives it is evident that the limits of morals and duties are blurred. Very often the contemporaries outline their actions the way the like and do not care much about a strong moral or philosophical background of their actions. Immanuel Kant provides us with the relevant basis of our actions’ determination and development and it is very interesting to find the appropriateness of the nineteenth century thinker in the modern world. It is possible to claim that the main points of Kantian Politics, Ethics and Philosophy are the favorable basis for the contemporaries’ actions development. In case the modern governments and the leaders projected the principles of the personal responsibility for their actions on them, the problem of corruption or unjust military attacks would hardly occur in the world. is morally and ethically a very appealing and fundamentally correct practice. The ideas of freedom and liberty are supported by Kant, but the principles of order and common moral principles of behavior are also considered by this great philosopher. References Bowie, N. E., 1999, Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers. Day, Richard B., 2002, “History, Reason and Hope: A Comparative Study of Kant, Hayek and Habermas Dialogue on Personal and Political Ethics”, Humanitas, vol. 15, p. 4+. Fleischacker, Samuel, 1999, A Third Concept of Liberty: Judgment and Freedom in Kant and Adam Smith, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Flikschuh, Katrin, 2000, Kant and Modern Political Philosophy, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press. Groves, Christopher R., 2001, "Deleuze's Kant: Enlightenment and Education," Philosophy Today, vol.  45, p. 77+. Hanninen, Sakari, 2003, "The Eternal Return of Politics," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, vol. 28, p. 287+. Kant and Deontology. [Online]. Available at: http://py111.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/kant-and-deontology/ [Accessed 23 April 2012]. Long, Eugene Thomas, 2005, "Sherover, Charles M. from Kant and Royce to Heidegger: Essays in Modern Philosophy," The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 58, p. 920+. Mandt, A.J., 1997, "Fichte, Kant's Legacy and the Meaning of Modern Philosophy," The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 50, p. 591+. Mieszkowski, Jan, 2006, Labors of Imagination: Aesthetics and Political Economy from Kant to Althusser, New York, Fordham University Press. Murphy, Margueritte, 2008, "Pure Art, Pure Desire: Changing Definitions of L'art Pour L'art from Kant to Gautier," Studies in Romanticism, vol.  47, p. 147+. Nagel, T., 1988, Autonomy and Deontology. In S. Scheffler (Ed.), Consequentialism and Its Critics, New York, Oxford University Press. Negretto, Gabriel L., 1993, "Kant and the Illusion of Collective Security," Journal of International Affairs, vol. 46, pp. 501-523. Schmidt, Claudia M., 2007, "Hume and Kant on Historical Teleology," CLIO, vol. 36, p. 199+. Shelton, Mark, 2000, "The Morality of Peace: Kant and Hegel on the Grounds for Ethical Ideals," The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 54, p. 379+. Tate, John W., 1997, "Kant, Habermas and the 'Philosophical Legitimation' of Modernity," Journal of European Studies, vol. 27, p. 281+. van der Linden, Harry, 1988, Kantian Ethics and Socialism, Indianapolis, Hackett. Wiarda, Howard J., 2009, "The Political Sociology of a Concept: Corporatism and the "distinct Tradition", The Americas, vol.  66, p. 81+. Williams, Howard (ed.), 1992, Essays on Kant's Political Philosophy, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Williams, Howard, 1983, Kant's Political Philosophy, New York, St. Martin's Pres Read More