Immanuel Kant was a famous German philosopher and proponent of Liberalism and worldwide democracy. Kant was born in Konigsberg, Prussia, on 22 April 1724. Kant believed that the human mind is responsible for the creation of human experience. According to him, reason is the source of morality. Politically, Kant was a proponent of Universal peace. According to him, Democracy and international cooperation will result in universal peace. However, he believes that it is not rationally planned. Kant’s religious views vary throughout his life.
Here, we are going to describe Kant’s right-to-rebel philosophy. Kant doesn’t s support the rebel against the government. But also, he did not mean that the state is always right and just by virtue of his power. According to him, the opposition or rebels should be presented via legislative will.
Though the above point of view seems valid and practical, it is not viable and pragmatic in reality. It requires domination and centralization of coercive power to bring about a legislative rebellion. Kant also requires that a right to rebel would demand the authorization of sovereignty for the people by the state. This kind of authorization is an exercise of sovereign power, but rebels usually don’t become the subject of a sovereign power. They are shattered and united only against the sovereigns. This raises a contradiction in Kant’s idea of rebellion.
Another contradiction in his ideas is witnessed when he sympathized with proponents of progressivism in the revolution of 1968. He also supported the French Revolution and Irish movements to achieve independence. On the other hand, in his own book, “Metaphysics of Morals”, he absolutely condemns the revolution. As a whole, he was a supporter of resistance against cruet state powers, but on the other hand, he also prohibited revolutions.
In several places, Kant condemns the illegal and unjust means of revolution and the attainment of its constitution. For him, a rebel is never justified. On the other hand, he argued that no one can be moral unless one is free, and revolution is about the people who want freedom.
Kant’s contradictory views about revolution are also in contradiction with the idea of democracy. Democracy ensures the freedom of expression, press and person. For democracy, freedom of expression and respect for conflicts hold key values. Kant’s changing opinion about the right to rebel is ambiguous.
Another point is that people cannot rebel against the state. Kant does not support the idea that citizens blindly support the state. He leaves the margin for passive civil disobedience, which exists in two forms. One is negative resistance, which is the refusal of citizens to accede to the government. A second form f resistance is resistance which doesn’t conflict with inner morality, according to Kant. Here, Kant missed the description of inner morality, which reduced the validity of his argument.
Despite the fact that Kant was against revolutions, he supported French revolutions. The French king held sovereignty until sovereignty was passed to the people, even though the king wanted the reins of power again by mutual discussion with the assembly. This understanding of sovereignty shows the difference between types of rebels: against an authority and against a peaceful transfer of power via a transparent election. In a decision, sway is passed back to the general population, so there is nothing amiss with the general population supplanting the whole government. Without a decision (or comparable technique for assigning the arrival of sway to the general population), any activity for supplanting the administration isn’t right.
In a nutshell, it can be said that Kant’s view about rebellion is contradictor with its own principal philosophies.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
