Living in Germany, I can not ignore Kant’s influence on philosophy and society, especially since his definition of human dignity “not to be used as mere mean but as an end too” is used by our supreme court the “Bundesverfassungsgericht” to defend our constitution, the “Grundgesetz”. I think he has made a great point with his epistemology but what I am more concerned about is his system of ethics and politics.
The categorical imperative applies to every human being, in consequence not allowing a double-standard for governments agents. But his political philosophy strictly requires a state. Is his political philosophy logically bound to his ethics? Can a libertarian political philosophy derived from his categorical imperative? Has there been any work on this subject? Maybe a libertarian interpretation of Kant would make the idea of liberty more popular in europe.
Being not a native english speaker, correct me please if I’m misusing the language.
Thank you for the link, though I find it painful to listen to lectures if there is the possibility to just read the stuff proposed but well.
I am halfway through the lecture and Gordon from what I understand basically states that Kant’s philosophy can be modified to ‘fit’ libertarianism. Quite interesting, I will write more on that some other time.
I am aware of the option of automated translations but they are really really bad in most cases though they can give an idea what a particular text is about. I have no problem understanding english spoken or written but writing english is a bit of a problem because I am not really fluent yet. Thank you though for your proposition.
Well, I don’t see why Kant’s categorical imperative could not be used to justify a libertarian order. After all, the libertarian system of ethics is internally consistent and we could act in a libertarian fashion without violating a general libertarian code of law.
The problem is that pretty much any school of thought could twist their philosophy so as to fit this principle. A socialist could claim that forceful expropriation of his assets would be fine with him if he were a capitalist, and that’s why he supports the expropriation of existing capitalists. A democrat may argue that he subjects himself to majority rule and thus expects others to follow suit.
As for the rest of his political philosophy, I’ll admit I’m not really familiar with it, but it seems to be a somewhat uncoordinated defense of enlightenment-styled republicanism. When I was confronted with some of his claims in my Abitur days, I often employed Hoppean counter-arguments to critique them. I found that you could seriously challenge his assumptions by studying Democracy: The God That Failed and related materials.
Ayn Rand hates Kant for many reasons, particularly for his ethics. Kant extolls the virtue of altruism, and if you’ve read anything by Ayn Rand, then you know what she thinks of altruism.
As for Karl Popper, I’m not familiar with his opinion of Kant. However, I can see how Popper’s philosophy of science mirrors Kant’s epistemology. Kant recognized that there are severe limits on the mind’s ability to understand reality, or ‘things-in-themselves’. Popper realized that there are similar problems in science: it can only discover what is false, not what is “true.”
From what I know of Kant, it seems to me that he just presumed that there must be states. But his political philosophy seems to be pretty libertarian in outlook already. The only problem is that he, like many other thinkers of his time, saw liberty as being necessarily a product of state action. So for him, the question was which form of state is the best for producing liberty.
Classical liberals and modern libertarians start with a different foundation. According to their view, liberty precedes the state, and thus cannot be a product of it. Thus the question for them is how liberty can best flourish in spite of the state. The most advanced answer to this question is that liberty can best flourish with no state at all.
Well, the thing is, if the socialist were to make that claim, he’d be contradicting himself. “Forceful expropriation”, as commonly used, implies that it would not be fine with him. Hence, if it would be fine with him, there would be no expropriation, forceful or otherwise. He would, in effect, be voluntarily giving away his assets.
Likewise for the democrat. By subjecting himself to majority rule, he is effectively endorsing their decisions. Thus there is no coercion or compulsion for him to always and everywhere follow “the will of the majority”.
