Kant’s Moral and Political Philosophy
Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy revolves around our everyday conversion of rational knowledge into philosophical wisdom, which serves as a practical reason it itself to follow morality. Kant’s theory defines a moral deed as ‘categorical imperative’, which though is derived from ‘duty’ but according to Kant is not duty. In fact they are principles that are supposed to obey in all circumstances.
While analyzing the situation what would be Kant’s suggestion regarding Iraq war, first we have to explore Kant’s political philosophy. Morality arises the concept of individual freedom and liberals think of individual freedom as a moral capacity rather than as a natural right, instead of interpreting it in the light of rationality of individual choice, individual freedom is regarded as a prerequisite to possible social co-operation between individuals. Such a cooperation according to Kantian perspective shifts from a predominantly hostile, political conception of freedom to a predominantly co-operative, moral account. His two works are some of the evidences that speak in the issue of mainstream liberalism, Kant’s ethical and political writings, i.e. ‘Ground work of the Metaphysics of Morals’ and ‘Rechtslehre’ which goes against the notion of contemporary liberals.
Therefore Kant’s philosophy whether political, ethical or moral condemns the violation of freedom to the extent where it opposes nature and denies morality. Following are some of the reasons why Kant would have negated war in Iraq.
Kant’s Metaphysics of Freedom – Freedom vs. Nature
Kant’s metaphysics of freedom presents reasoning behind every ideology that constitutes the most controversial aspect of his moral philosophy in which the distinction between the negative and the positive conceptions of freedom is emphasized. Kantian negative perception defines freedom in the light of those struggles that an individual makes as a rational influenced from determination by the causality of nature, while the positive conception refers to its capacity to act from principles of pure practical reason alone. Kant refers such a negative conception as the transcendental idea of freedom, that opposes the nature while he refers the positive conception as practical or moral freedom (Flikschuh, 2000, p. 50).
This is evident from Kant’s political philosophy that has continued to be assessed predominantly from his ethical writings, but often ignored by contemporary philosophers. What Kant has highlighted is the distinction between moral freedom and political freedom elucidated by contrasting action from duty in Kant’s ethics with freedom of choice in his philosophical work ‘Rechtslehre’. This is similar to when applied to the implied contrast between ‘obligation’ and ‘choice’ and encourages political freedom defined as non-interference by others as long as the person’s pursuit of their desire based choices.
No doubt it is a common familiar liberal view, but the problem is that it conflicts with Kant’s non-compatible metaphysics of freedom as a shared idea of pure practical reasoning when compared to the conception of political freedom as desire-based choice. This is the account for which Kantian philosophy negates deeds that opposes nature and of course freedom is among one of them. Since Kant’s resolution of the conflict between freedom and nature presupposes the doctrine of transcendental idealism, therefore it seems problematic for today’s philosophers to provide reasons of space, and in light of the strong reactions which transcendental idealism tends to provoke.
Kant’s Deontological theory
Kant’s deontological theory serves to tell us one of the reasons why Kant condemned actions against nature. Since it is a complete approach to morality that grew out of the work of Immanuel Kant, this is a concept that emerged as a highly complex and interconnected philosophy of knowledge, morality, judgment, and politics in the eighteenth century. It is through this morality roots that we judge this theory to define the true means of being morally right in terms of certain objectively valid duties, derived purely from reasoned reflection on the structure of rational agency. When we act against such morally defined duties, consequences occur. War is an example of such consequences which is without reference to those that act against acting on the duty in question.
To be more particular, Kantian deontology opposes all those principles that do not offer any valid reasoning to go against nature or morality and war is the best example of such deeds which a government chooses. Devoid of the structure of any practical reason itself, any war or conflict is against morality which is based on the self-imposition of objectively valid moral imperatives grasped through reflective reason alone (Christman, 2002, p. 15). Since such actions like war are conducted without reference to contingencies of time, place, or consequence, therefore reason and autonomy are affected.
This is the manner in which, Kantian deontology is itself a morality based on the moral value of the person in two inter-related ways that fulfills categorical imperative. The first way tells us about the moral authority a person enjoys by only practicing such principles on himself or herself, like they are dependant on the point of view of the reasonable person and are binding to be manifested by autonomy. This way the person is said to be self governed by his or her own actions. The reason behind this way is the notion what Kant suggests that every rational person in this world follows virtue of reasoning and freedom and is bound by certain universal principles that are able to be detained and imposed upon.
The second way suggests that morality itself is a fundamentally valuable phenomenon therefore it satisfies what takes as the seat of dignity and moral worth, so no act or policy is justified if it exploits some person in order to achieve some valuable goal. The second aspect of Categorical Imperative urges to treat humanity not as the deed without reasoning and justification.
Morality is not what condemns human rights – Kant’s Virtue Theory
Kant’s liberal political philosophy follows a set of doctrines that fulfills human rights in the perspective of the duties that do not interfere with each other against their will, and the like that Kantian ethics sees as fundamental can best be expressed in terms of the basic rights that all human beings enjoy. Kant believes that rights people hold simply in virtue of their humanity are not based on any contract or convention; therefore Kantian theory acts as a moral theorist who takes no time while justifying the importance of protecting individual rights.
This dimension of Kantian theory highlights the true significance of how political philosophy gets liberal in the circumstances where the protection of individual rights is fundamental and the state is enjoined not to promote the good of citizens against their will. Of course this contradicts with today’s situations where the state is free to violate its’ citizens’ rights without even giving proper justification.
Another significant approach to morality that condemns human rights violations is what we call as ‘virtue ethics’ or ‘virtue theory.’ This theory emphasizes upon the true conception of the ideal human being and how he or she leads life, in the scenario where he or she enjoys a high degree of moral happiness as the fundamental moral good. When this happens, other character traits or virtues arise, such virtues are considered necessary for the person to lead a satisfactory life, hence to achieve that good. The collection of human beings turns into institutions and society where social practices are evaluated according to how they allow that development and accord with the demands of such virtues. According to Kant’s philosophy, the highest achievement of a state lies in the notion to what extent it is successful in ensuring its citizens such a liberal and free society, where they are free to express their opinions.
Goodness and virtue opposes war and conflicts, morality believe that human deeds are quality easily and universally recognized, and that words like justice or goodness refer clearly to particular states of being. Kantian philosophy favors justice, goodness and peace as morality and supports immoral actions and the other baldly deeds as being ‘immorality’. Many moral philosophers like Kant according to critics are unwilling to accept a reason for deterrence, therefore deontological arguments that attempt to bridge the gap between personal and political ethics are employed.
Nuclear deterrence vs. Morality
Kantian deontological or consequentialist perspective condemns the utilization of nuclear weapons. Such an ethical analysis of nuclear deterrence usually proceeds from the condition where either one either focuses on the consequences that follow from the possession and intent to use nuclear weapons, or one focuses on the moral principles at stake. A consequentialist perspective argues against nuclear deterrence for the reasoning he or she provides as harm generated by the possession or use of such weapons. Similarly, he argues on behalf of a nuclear deterrence policy by appeal to the way in which the fear of the use of nuclear weapons has itself been responsible for a major reduction in the extent of harm that would have been otherwise generated by conventional wars (Barkenbus, 1992, p. 213).
While analyzing deontologists in the context of destruction, they uphold the notion that we may threaten evil for good to come as morality does not allow a person to kill another person. Such ‘evil threatening’ has escorted many anti-Kantians to criticize retaliation with weapons as it is a source to kill humanity, therefore nuclear deterrence involves the intentioned will to kill innocent human beings. Deontological thinking sets aside the priority of utility or consequences as the criterion for assessing what morality requires of us; in their place it puts a usually supreme moral principle, the violation of which would render all morality a shame, e.g., it is categorically wrong to intend to kill innocent persons (Barkenbus, 1992, p. 213).
Kant being the great modern interpreter of deontology condemned war, use of nuclear weapons and that of mass destruction as they violate the basic principle of morality and virtue. Critics claim that by default they have an attempt to secure morality as autonomous from any theological horizon for the reason every individual possesses the right to self-defense. If for a moment this perception seems true, it would be obvious that somewhere the moral law has been violated in some context because morality is the necessary structure of practical reason. Morality involves only categorical imperatives, i.e., Kant defines only those which are rationally universal i.e., without a need of reference to any purpose or goods to be achieved.
When one wants to pursue the psychological enquiries behind philosophies of war, one cannot avoid Kantian perspective which constitutes ethical or moral issues for one which is immediately enabled to account for the Kantian theories of morals. Another dimension for viewing Kantian philosophy behind war is that one of the chief causes of moral behaviour is fear, both conscious and unconscious, of a god’s displeasure, and fear of the enmity of society. And this, indeed, is one of the main reasons why moral precepts present themselves to some people as ‘categorical’ commands in which the moral code of a society is partly determined by the beliefs of that society concerning the conditions of its own happiness or, in other words, the conditions which leads a society to encourage or discourage a given type of conduct by the use of moral sanctions.
When it comes to society or moral sanctions, it is clear that a society consists of many individuals and if every single person follows the moral principles there is no reason why one looks forward towards war or so called ‘self-defense’. This is the reason why altruism is recommended in most moral codes and egotism condemned because it is from the observation of this connection between morality and happiness that theories of morals ultimately spring, just as the moral theory of Kant is based on the fact, that moral precepts have for some people the force of unalterable commands.
Engaging in War vs. Practicing Justice
Kantian notion of morality carries an implication for the way we should understand our basic obligation to practice justice, so it carries an implication for how we should regard war. War relationship with justice entails regarding the conduct of treatment of persons. However, in this case what Kant teaches us in the relevant area of justice is not distributive justice but that part of justice that requires us to respect the rights of persons. If there assumes to be a paramount duty of justice that require us not to engage in warfare, then even though a war might be fought for just ends, still this paramount duty of justice would be overriding.
This is just the case in Iraq’s war where we see the rights of individuals have violated by coming into conflict, and then it has decided which right takes moral precedence, that is, which right justice requires us to respect in our actions. In such cases we should respect the more basic even if the conflicting rights is more basic than the other, in other words, in cases where one right derives from another we are supposed to respect the more fundamental, underlying right. In complex cases where decision making gets difficult, the more basic right takes moral precedence. For instance in scenarios where one right in particular can make a fair claim to be the most basic right, namely the right of persons to be treated as persons. This right serves as the underlying right behind all other rights of human beings, upon which the others rest. Therefore if the most fundamental one is dissented or violated, morality values coincide with each other resulting in violating the rest of others.
Engaging in war is the same case as discussed above, though, is at odds with respecting this basic right of persons. This is so because, this right entails clearly that it entails not dismissing the inherent worth of others, i.e., it entails not viewing and treating human persons merely as obstacles in our path, to be got around or climbed over. War, above all the moral theories unlike staying the hand of an assailant, involves viewing and treating the enemy with hostility and, often, even as dehumanized. But since such ways of viewing and treating other human beings elucidate them as objects, therefore mere obstacles, and so these ways of viewing and treating others are in themselves a violation of the right of persons to be treated as persons.
This is so whether or not the war is fought according to rules and whether or not efforts are made to keep the war as gentle as possible, a war is a war entailing violation of morality. Same is the case with Iraq war, which though was according to the set rules and was followed with civilities exchanged, the tendency of those engaged, even before the fighting begin, but especially after it has begun, was to view the enemy with hostility. This has caused mass destruction and dehumanizing targets, for combatants to deepen the tendency of violations by the use of weapons which did not even required face-to-face contact. For the competent, the process is encouraged by each side’s propaganda effort which itself is an immoral behaviour opposing ethics. This is the example where violation of the right of persons to be treated as persons indicates whenever the enemy is dehumanized and treated as material objects to be obliterated or neutralized; treating the enemy with utter hostility also violates this right (Kellenberger, 1995, p. 389).
Since it is true that war is an immoral phenomenon which requires treating the enemy as humanized or at least with this kind of overriding hostility, even though a particular war may be fought for just ends, it will necessarily violate the underlying right of those designated enemies to be treated as persons. Kant has condemned any human right violation and since war requires us to violate this most basic right of persons, it requires us to violate the paramount duty of justice, and this makes our engaging in war incompatible with our practice of justice, which Kant has defined as being ‘immoral’.
War according to Kant is among ‘sin’ and so its implication in morality creates a sin-morality relationship that it provides a basis for moral reform. Any relationship regarding human beings in the context of justice and morality opposes what has been done in Iraq and therefore the received morality provides a basis for the moral rejection of species. Practicing prejudice against persons on the basis of race, gender, or community is wrong, as for sin-morality relationship; there is no requirement of ‘speciesism’ since human beings have a relationship with each other.
It does not make any sense on behalf of Kant’s account to treat others as ends out of a sense of duty because respecting each others’ morals is what Kant’s political philosophy is all about. Treating or putting others as means to ends in this way, though, is not to act for the sake of others but for ourselves because Kant suggests we are responsible for our own deeds and as categorical imperative cannot conflict with nature. Critics might see Kant as endorsing such action just for the sake of obtaining action of moral worth; as a matter of fact it is true provided that actions must be performed for the sake of duty in order to have moral worth. This way we can presume Kant’s opinion regarding war, which affirm that the person with a corrupt will and the psychotic conceptually are incapable of acquiring morality by virtue of their yet being persons.
Work Cited
Barkenbus Jack, N., 1992. Ethics, Nuclear Deterrence and War: Professors World Peace Academy: New York.
Carson Thomas. L, & Moser Paul, K., 1997. Morality and the Good Life: Oxford University Press: New York.
Christman John, 2002. Social and Political Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction: Routledge: New York.
Flikschuh Katrin, 2000. Kant and Modern Political Philosophy: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York.
Kellenberger J., 1995. Relationship Morality: Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park, PA.