Academic Master

English

Describe Kant’s argument on the right to rebel and why is it wrong?

Immunel Kant was a famous German philosopher and proponent of Liberalism and worldwide democracy. Kant was born Konigsberg, Prussia on in 22 April 1724. Kant believed that human mind is responsible for 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. Though he beliefs that it is not rationally planned. Kant’s religious views vary throughout his life.

Here we are going to describe the right of to rebel philosophy of Kant. Kant doesn’t s support the rebel against the government. But also he did not mean that state is always right and just by the virtue of his power. According to him the opposition or rebel should be presented via legislative will.

Though the above point of view seems valid and practical but it is not viable and pragmatic in reality. It requires domination and centralization of coercive power to bring about a legislative rebel. Kant also requires that a right to rebel would demand the authorization of sovereign 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 an sovereign power. They are shattered and united only against the sovereigns. This rises contradiction in Kant’s idea of rebel.

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 ad Irish movements to achieve independence. On the other hand in his own book, “Metaphysics of Morals”, he condemns the revolution absolutely. As a whole he was supporter of resistance against cruet state powers but on the other hand he also prohibited revolutions .

At several places Kant condemns the illegal and unjust means of revolution and the attainment of its constitution. For him a rebel is never justified. But on the other hand he forced the argument that no one can be moral unless one is free and revolution is about the people who want freedom.

The Kant’s contradictory views about revolution are also in contradiction with the idea of democracy. Democracy ensure the freedom of expression, press and person. For democracy , freedom of expression and respect for conflicts holds a key value. The Kant’s changing opinion about right to rebel are ambiguous.

Another point is that people cannot rebel against the state. Kant does not support that citizens blindly support the state. He leaves the margin for a passive civil disobedience which exist in two forms. One is negative resistance that is 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 holds sovereignty until sovereignty passed to the people even though king wanted the reins of power again by mutual discussion with 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 went for supplanting the administration isn’t right.

In a nut shell, it can be said that Kant’s view about rebel are contradictor with its own principal philosophies.

SEARCH

Top-right-side-AD-min
WHY US?

Calculate Your Order




Standard price

$310

SAVE ON YOUR FIRST ORDER!

$263.5

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Pop-up Message