Of the above three divisions ‒‒ speculative use of reason,
practical reason, and aesthetic judgment ‒‒ it is the second one, namely
practical reason, that has the ultimate authority over the other two. That is
to say, both speculative use of reason and aesthetic judgment can be used
correctly or incorrectly depending on how one uses practical reason. In other
words, both science and aesthetics require morality as their foundations. For
Kant, the primacy of practical reason lies in its freedom. Science and
aesthetics are both unfree to the extent that they are partly determined by the
external stimuli by which we are affected contingently. Practical reason alone
is free. That is to say, when it comes to formulating practical rules in order
to guide our own conduct, we find that no external stimuli can sufficiently
determine the rules by which we decide to live. Thus, when our practical
problems in part stem from the poor state of science or of aesthetics, then it
is not up to speculative reason or aesthetic judgment to remedy the situation.
Rather, the responsibility falls solely upon practical reason.
That is the big picture of Kantian
philosophy. Now I move on to politics, and more specifically, to the doctrine
of public right.
Kant’s doctrine of public right is
founded on the idea of moral law. For Kant, the moral law is an imperative, a command, a necessary
prescription, an unconditional practical rule. The moral law is sharply
distinguished from a law of prudence, a law which is conditioned by a
contingent desire or object. While the moral law commands all free beings regardless of their contingent conditions, laws of
prudence merely recommend a course of action to those who are under certain
conditions. For example, one cannot unconditionally command a person to buy a
house, own a car, or work in a particular occupation. These are mere
recommendations, and whether or not the person decides to pursue these ends or
not is entirely up to the contingent state of that person. On the other hand,
one is justified in prohibiting murder and suicide unconditionally. This is
because such acts violate the moral law. But what is this law? For Kant, the
moral law states thus: “will that your maxim can be at the same time a
universal law of nature.” Kant further deduces more precise formulations, for
example: “treat humanity [i.e. freedom] not merely as means but also as ends.”
Murder, theft, rape, and other such crimes are all contrary to morality, not
because they excite the feeling of disgust (since such a judgment belongs to
aesthetics, not to practical reason) but rather because they are inconsistent
with the moral law. All such crimes treat humanity merely as means to one’s
enjoyment or alleviation of pain, and thereby forget that the other is also and
end in itself.
Based on the moral law, Kant defines
a state as a union of free beings who have an interest in maintaining a moral
order. A state is sharply distinguished from a nation. Whereas a state is defined by its government (which is
often further defined by the territory which it governs,) a nation is defined
by its common ancestry. States and nations have different kinds of rights. The
right of the state is to govern over its own territory. In this sense, the
right of the state is static, and one is bound by such rights only to the
extent that one inhabits that state’s territory. On the other hand, the right
of nations governs a people. Thus, the right of nations is mobile, holding people
responsible no matter where they go. Finally, Kant puts forth the idea of a cosmopolitan right. A cosmopolitan right
is founded on the recognition that every human is entitled to an equal share of
resources on earth. Thus, for Kant, there is only one kind of cosmopolitan
right, and that is the right to peaceful commerce.
The final end of Kantian politics is
perpetual peace. However, Kant acknowledges that perpetual peace is impossible,
since one is incapable of eradicating the contingencies which always call for
new political action. However, every political decision, and thus every
exercise of right, must nevertheless be regulated by the goal of perpetual
peace.
For Kant, a state is constituted in
order to create a stable institution of justice, where free beings are coerced
into respecting each other’s freedom. The rights of state consist of the
state’s right to regulate the persons under its governance. Kant argues that
the state has absolute authority over its subjects. For Kant, this follows from
the definition of state, for the state is constituted as an arbiter, not as a
mere tool that can be used for the private subjective interest of particular
individuals. Thus, for example, the state has the unconditional right to
intervene with excessive accumulation of wealth, to prevent murder and rape,
and to police theft and riots. In the Kantian framework, a state thus acts as
an educator of the people. When a person makes a decision based on the moral
law, and nonetheless fails in some way to live up to his or her decision, then
the state acts as a correcting force for that person. Thus, the collection of
laws instituted by the state must be consistent with the moral law.
Furthermore, the subjects are never morally authorized to overturn and abolish
the state. The best they can do is to alter state laws by their public use of
reason.
The rights of nations consist of
rule by which each nation is forced to treat another nation as a moral person.
For example, the Japanese people must interact with the Irish people in such a
way that the Irishness of the Irish people is treated as an end in itself. This
prevents the Japanese people from intervening with Irish culture without the
consent of the Irish. Destroying castles, paving the trails of the Wicklow
Mountains, removing the statue of James Joyce from the streets of Dublin— all
such actions must be prohibited by the right of nations, unless the Irish
people give consent. In the same train of thought, for Kant a war is never
just, since war tends towards the annihilation of a nation, and such
annihilation fails to treat the nation as a moral person, i.e. as an end in
itself. Similarly, colonization is also prohibited, since such an act also
implies the domination and thus the destruction of one nation by another.
Finally,
cosmopolitan right is founded on the free association of states. Kant
recognizes that perpetual peace is impossible, not because peace is impossible,
but because the forced perpetuation of peace at the cosmopolitan level would
require a powerful government that will be the cause of a massive civil war.
Moreover, Kant argues that a forced association of unwilling states only
intensifies the conflict that motivates the unwillingness, which ends up
perpetuating war. Thus, in order to approximate
the state of perpetual peace, the association of states must be a free association. Each state must enter
into association by their own autonomous decision. Such a cosmopolitan
association of states warrants the right of individuals to travel, commerce,
and interact with each other beyond their particular state and nation of
origin. In other words, by entering into this cosmopolitan association, states
are required to treat their subjects under universal moral laws, while nations
are also required to treat each other under the same laws.
In
light of the above political framework, Kantian politics has three fundamental
tasks. First, the state must secure absolute authority over its subjects.
Second, nations must treat each other as moral persons, i.e. as ends in
themselves. Third, states must enter into free association with each other,
thereby revising their own local political rules in light of universal moral
principles.
