Kant

Kant is one of many philosophers to take on what is known as social contract theory.  Many philosophers begin with the idea that humans had to develop into the cooperative, sociable creatures we have become.  This thought experiment, known as the state of nature, hypothesizes that, at some imagined point in the past, human beings were isolated, uncivilized creatures engaged in fierce competition for limited resources.  

Eventually, human beings decided that it would be in everyone’s best interests to form a society as we know it, with laws and government to enforce them.  “However, Kant differs importantly from Hobbes on the reason or motivation for leaving the state of nature.  Whereas for Hobbes this motivation is based on rational self-interest . . . for Kant it is based on a principle of right” (Baynes, 1989, p. 447)  This agreement is known as the social contract.

Kant describes humans as embodying a “social unsociability” (Kant, 1784, Fourth Thesis).  What Kant means by this is that humans feel the urge to cooperate but simultaneously feel a strong need for everything to go their way.  This creates a wide variety of evils; war, greed, violence, theft, and the like.  The state of nature necessitates that its inhabitants look after themselves over anyone else.  Everyone is against everyone else in competition for scarce resources.

Everyone in the state of nature is in fierce competition with one another.  Kant does not regard this as a bad thing necessarily.  This competition encourages people to develop their talents (Kant, 1784, Fourth Thesis).  Humans naturally tend towards laziness, in Kant’s view (Kant, 1784, Fourth Thesis).  This natural tendency of laziness is overcome by the desire to become the best and assert dominance over their fellow human beings (Kant, 1784, Fourth Thesis).  “This opposition . . . brings him to conquer his inclination to laziness and, propelled by vainglory, lust for power, and avarice, to achieve a rank among his fellows whom he cannot tolerate but from whom he cannot withdraw” (Kant, 1784, Fourth Thesis).  If there was no such competition, humans would be lazy and no better than the other animals (Kant, 1784, Fourth Thesis).

Humans in the state of nature have the ultimate freedom—they can literally do whatever they want, without fear of any consequence from any government authority.  Once they have entered into the social contract, they give up the absolute freedom in favor of law and order.  They are no longer permitted to kill others or steal the property of others, but that also means others are not permitted to kill them or steal their property.  This benefits all parties involved.  However, should they break the laws they have agreed to obey by entering the social contract, they have given up their right to freedom.  They have agreed to allow the State to imprison or even execute them for violating society’s laws.

Kant argues that humankind’s selfish and violent tendencies would simply be exhausted (Kant, 1784, Fourth Thesis).  After all the people come together in society and create nation-states, these nation-states will start to war with one another (Kant, 1784, Seventh Thesis.).  These warring nation-states will have to come together, as individuals in the state of nature came together (Kant, 1784, Eighth Thesis).  

In the end, war itself will be seen as not only so artificial, in outcome so uncertain for both sides, in after-effects so painful in the form of an ever-growing war debt (a new invention) that cannot be met, that it will be regarded as a most dubious undertaking (Kant, 1784, Eighth Thesis). 

Eventually, everyone would get so tired of warring against each other and not having any money for other, more worthy things, that they will come together in peace (Kant, 1784, Eighth Thesis).

This analogy, comparing international relations to the warring individuals of the state of nature is overly simplistic.  While nations and individuals may have similar self-interested motivations, nations have the interests of more than one group of person to consider.  Some people may be more than willing to fight and kill to resolve a conflict; others would rather do almost anything instead of engaging in a battle.  Nations are made of up of both of these types of people who have to come to a consensus as to what course of action to take as a cohesive unit.

Kant has a fairly absolute and unequivocal view of morality—there is not much of a gray area.  He is perhaps most well-known for his categorical imperative.  This means that one should only act in a way that one would universalize—that is, when deciding if one is acting in a morally acceptable manner, one should consider what a world in which everyone in a similar situation acted the same way (Kant, 1785b, p. 37).  Kant’s moral philosophy draws some conclusions many would find unsatisfactory.  One of the famous examples of Kant’s categorical imperative is the maxim that one not lie.  When one lies, one is using other human beings as means to an end, rather than an end in themselves, which denies them their dignity.  

This somewhat unforgiving view of morality comes from Kant’s criticism of utilitarianism. “Happiness alone is, in the view of reason, far from being the complete good . . . On the other hand, morality alone . . . is likewise far from being the complete good” (Kant, 1781, Chapter 2, Section II).  Maximizing happiness, which is the goal of utilitarianism, is not an important goal for Kant.  However, morality for morality’s sake does no good, either.  There must be good, common sense reasons for how we act and how we define acting morally, but mere happiness is not sufficient justification.

Kant put forward his account of the state of nature and the social contract, but the arguments are not very convincing.  Perhaps the most convincing evidence of how incorrect Kant’s theory is comes from our own society.  Hundreds of years later, we still have war; there are American troops stationed in countries all over the world.  There are still children starving, desperately underfunded public programs, and lack of education, but somehow, there is always enough money to participate in the next armed conflict or to use military force to settle disagreements.  The government continues to spend a large amount of money on national defense and there are still American troops fighting abroad.  

Perhaps Kant did not take into consideration that America would end up with an all-volunteer military and that this would mean that the burden of future wars would be borne by a small percentage of the population.  In past wars, the entire country felt the sacrifice.  Now, without the draft, the sacrifice is felt only by a small portion of the population who volunteered to serve their country.  The rest of the country can go on about their normal activities and forget there is anything going on abroad. 

If Kant was correct, eventually people would have become tired prioritizing military and defense spending over spending on education, healthcare, and other social programs that benefit those in need.  “[I]ncessant wars will eventually lead rulers to recognize the benefits of peaceful negotiation. They will gradually increase the freedoms of their citizens, because freer citizens are economically more productive and hence make the state stronger in its international dealings” (Rauscher, 2007, 8).  If the actions of our representative government is any indication, the American people are not yet war-weary, and the government certainly hasn’t given American citizens any more freedoms—In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the American people have fewer freedoms than ever!  Many freedoms were given up in the name of “national security” and it seems doubtful that very many of them will ever return.  After hundreds of years, it seems our society has still not evolved past the state of constant war, so it seems very doubtful that Kant is correct.  Though, with any luck, in a few hundred more years, Kant will be shown to have been correct all along.

References

Baynes, K.. (1989). KANT ON PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT. The Monist, 72(3), 433–453. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27903149 

Kant, I. (1781). The Critique of Pure Reason. (J.M.D. Meiklejohn, Trans.). [Kindle Fire version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Kant, I. (1784). Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View. (L.W. Beck, Trans.). Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/universal-history.htm

Kant, I. (1785b). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. (A W. Wood, Eds., Trans.) Yale University Press.  Retrieved from <http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Kant%20-%20groundwork%20for%20the%20metaphysics%20of%20morals%20with%20essays.pdf>

Rauscher, F. (2007, July 24). Kant's Social and Political Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/#SocCon