Political Philosophy, Research Paper Example

Kant’s Political Philosophy

Emmanuel Kant wrote widely on political philosophy. Most of his writings on political thought are contained in a single book and a few shorter works that were published separately in 1797. His main book was entitled ‘Metaphysics of Morals. The first part of the two-part book was called “Doctrine of Right”. Almost all the political topics he wrote about are contained in this book.

In his shorter works, Kant wrote about topics such as international relations, meaning of enlightenment and natural rights. In Arendt’s view, Kant’s thoughts are best considered within practical and theoretical philosophy (56). Political philosophy is categorized under the practical element. However, a distinction is often made between empirical elements and those elements arising from virtue proper.

Kant emphasized on pure aspects that relate to political philosophy at the expense of empirical elements. He was particularly opposed to Hobbes, who argued that a politician should only be concerned with pragmatic governance and should never pay attention to abstract rights.

Kant’s political philosophy was governed by the categorical imperative and dwelt much on issue relating to deliberative human behavior. He focused on practical, which he defines as “the rules of human behavior with regard to ones free choice” at the expense of theoretical philosophy, which he understood to be all about “the rule of knowledge”.

Kant made a distinction between political rights and political virtues by through the two main parts that made up the book Metaphysics of Morals, namely: “Doctrine of Virtue”, and “Doctrine of Right”. He imposes some limitations on rights by defining three conditions that should be fulfilled for any idea to become an enforceable right.

To begin with, rights are only those actions which have an influence on other people. This means that duties that are for the benefit of the self are not rights. Secondly, rights are not concerned with the wish but only other people’s choices. This means that only actions at stake should be concerned as rights and not mere desires. Thirdly, right does not relate to matters involving the acts of other people, meaning that particular ends or desires cannot be regarded as right, but only the meaning, form and particular desires and ends that relate to many agents.

In order to make the understanding of the third condition become clear, Kant offers the example of trade, in which case for right to exist must involve an agreement between the two concerned parties, implying that any purpose that the agents want becomes right once an agreement is reached. These criteria seem less rigid than the way in which Kant ultimately intended them to be. This is because they encompass even those duties that are considered imperfect, but which are very beneficial to other people by improving their lives, a good example being acts of charity. This is contrary to the “harm principle” propounded by John Stuart Mill, which overcomes this problem by specifying that when subjected to law, the influence of right is always negative.

In addition to imposing conditions for determination of right, Kant goes ahead and contrasts between virtue and right. He is of the opinion that both of them relate intricately to freedom, but in very different ways. In this case, right is about outer freedom while virtue is about inner freedom. To be virtuous, according to Kant, is to be a master of one’s individual passions. Right is about the intended acts, which have to be considered independent of all the motives that the agent has for performing them. Virtue on the other hand, is about proper motives for all dutiful actions of an individual. Kant concludes that the freedom that arises out of proper considerations on matters of right and virtue is the basis of the state.

Karl Max’s Political Philosophy

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was born in a Jewish family in Trier, German Rhineland. Marx concentrated on political economy after relocating in London later in life. He wrote many publications about historical materialism, including Contribution to a Critique of Political Philosophy, which was produced in 1859. Most of today’s interpretations of Marx’s philosophy on political economy are based on this publication.

In his early writings, Marx made a distinction between political emancipation and human emancipation. He regarded political emancipation as the grant of liberties and liberal rights. He considered political emancipation is showing compatibility with the existence of religion, a good example being demonstrated by the United States. Marx argues that political emancipation is not only insufficient for complete human emancipation, it acts as a barrier. To explain this contention, Marx argued that ideas of justice and liberal rights are premised on the fundamental idea that every citizen needs protection from other people. Therefore, liberal rights are merely rights of separation, which are designed to protect us all from perceived threats. In such a view, freedom means freedom from interference.

The only view that is overlooked by Marx in his argument against political emancipation, specifically with matters of rights, is the fact that real freedom can only be achieved through positive relations among all people. According to Avineri, it is part of belonging in a human community, rather than a matter to be considered in isolation (66). Therefore, arguing for a regime of rights is tantamount to encouraging us to consider each other in a manner that undermines all possibilities of real freedom that we many achieve through human emancipation.

Marx is not essentially opposed to political emancipation since he considers liberalism to be an improvement on systems that encouraged discrimination and prejudice which existed in Germany at his time. Nevertheless, any politically emancipated liberalism has to be transcended on the ultimate route to genuine principles of human emancipation. It is unfortunate that Marx does not explain what he means by human emancipation, although it is rather clear that he uses the term in reference to ideals of non-alienated labor.

In ‘Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Introduction’, Marx makes the notorious remark when he writes that religion is “the opiate of the people”. He gives a detailed account of what he believes the role of religion in human emancipation to be. He also assesses the question of how a complete German revolution can be achieved and the role of proletariat in hastening the process of emancipation of the whole society.

Concerning religion, Marx agreed with Feuerbach’s claim in complete opposition to the traditional theologians’ conception that human beings created God in a manner that made Him look like themselves. He agreed with Feuerbach’s claim that by worshipping God, human beings were diverting their minds from the need to enjoy the human rights that they were entitled to. However, Marx criticizes Feuerbach by claiming that he does not understand why people find themselves in religious alienation and therefore is not in a good position to explain how religious alienation can be transcended.

According to Marx, human beings respond to alienation from material life by resorting to religion, and therefore, the only way to deal with this alienation is to bring about material emancipation, in which case religion will start withering away. Karl Marx, while appreciating the need for communal essence, believes that the sense of community that is created by religion is false. On the other hand, the state creates a false sense of equality in the eyes of the law. He believes in order for a genuine community to be created, the ideals of both religion and state have to be transcended through material emancipation.

John Locke’s Political Philosophy

John Locke’s (1632-1704) contribution to political philosophy is categorized into three areas: the law of nature, the state of nature and property. Concerning the law of nature, the theory of natural rights and natural law forms the most central theoretical perspective of Locke’s political philosophy. The concept of natural existed long before it was expounded by Locke, whereby certain moral truths applied to everyone, regardless of any prior agreements made or where one lived. Contrast had already been made between those laws that were made by nature, and therefore applicable to everyone everywhere, and the conventional laws that applied in only particular places where particular convention had already been put in place.

In the 16^th century, ideas on natural rights had gained prominence through written works by many philosophers, including Hobbes, Grotius and Puffendorf. Natural rights emphasized claims or privileges that individuals were entitled to. On the other hand, natural law was all about duties. Disagreements often arise when the relationships between these two concepts is being analyzed in Locke’s theory.

Leo Strauss as well as his supporters considers rights as essentially paramount in nature, and even goes ahead to portray that Locke’s position is similar to that held by Hobbes. Strauss says that Locke was in support of a hedonist theory in his attempt to explain human motivation, and therefore claims that we ought to agree with Hobbes’ belief that human beings are self-interested in nature.

In contrast to the arguments of Leo Strauss and his supporters, Tully, Dunn and Ashcraft are of the view that the primary element that defines human political philosophy is natural law and not natural rights. They are of the view that by emphasizing the right to liberty, life and property, John Locke was primarily emphasizing the need us to have a sense of duty towards other people: the duties not to enslave, kill or steal, respectively.

Chappell observes that majority of political philosophy scholars are of the view that Locke identified the need for a general duty to offer assistance through preservation of mankind, including the duty to offer charity to all people who do not have any way of procuring their subsistence (129). The scholars believe that duties are primary in Locke’s view since rights only exist in order to create the right environment for us to be able to fulfill all our duties.

State of nature, according to John Locke, exists when no legitimate political authority exists that is able to offer judgments involving disputes and where live according to the law of reason. In this regard, state of nature is very distinct from any political society (whereby there exists a legitimate government) and from a state of war (whereby men do not abide to the law of reason).

The theory of state of nature seems to have a close relationship with theory of natural law, mainly because the latter theory defines citizens’ rights in terms of freedom and equality. If the ground of accepting characterization offered by Locke regarding people being equal free and independent is strengthened, the state of nature becomes a more helpful device to be used for representing citizens. The central question for John Locke is whether or not a good government should be considered legitimate if it does have the complete consent of the citizens who are governed by it. In this case, actual contract and hypothetical contract theories tend to give different answers to this question.

The issue of property is considered one of the most important contributions that John Locke made in political thought. However, it is also one of the few aspects of his political philosophy that has suffered the most severe criticism. Different interpretations have been emerging relating to what Locke intended to achieve through his theory of property. Some scholars, such as C.B Macpherson consider Locke to be in strong defense of a process of capitalist accumulation that is free from any form of any restriction.

Macpherson’s interpretation of Locke’s property theory has been criticized from different quarters. For instance, Allan Ryan argues that since Locke takes property to include life, property and estate, it means that people with no land may still belong to the political society. The dispute that arises is on whether Locke is using property in an expansive sense or not. Some scholars consider Locke’s property rights theory to have fundamental flaws because of the way in which it underestimates the actual extent to which a state’s wage labor has the potential to make poor people become dependent on the rich, thereby undermining self-government.

The final question relates to the issue of property rights that have been acquired during the state of nature once a civil society has been put in place. Locke seems to be in support of introduction of taxes through consent by the majority, rather than through the requirement of unanimous consent.

Thomas Hobbes’ Political Philosophy

Thomas Hobbes was a 17^th Century philosopher who is considered one of the greatest political philosophers. His masterwork, Leviathan, rivals some political writings of prominent philosophers such as Plato, Rousseau, Aristotle, Rawls and Kant. Hobbes is most famous for developing the social contract theory, whereby he provides a method for justifying different political principles and arrangements through appeal to agreements that are made among persons who are suitably situated in an environment of rationality, freedom and equality.

Hobbes became infamous for using the social contract method to come up with a conclusion that astonished many people of his time: that all people must submit to an authority that has an absolute sovereign power. His methodological innovation led to a constructive impact on subsequent developments in political philosophy. However, his substantive decisions were used by some people to develop palatable philosophical positions.

The main goal of Hobbes’ philosophical project was to discover some rational principles through which a civil polity that would not suffer destruction from within could be constructed. He was motivated by the terrible experiences of living in an era in which political structures were disintegrating, resulting in the English Civil War. From these experiences, he concluded that only absolute governments are not prone to the systematic process of disintegration and an inevitable civil war. For this reason, he argued, people have to submit to a certain political authority that is absolute in its structures and mode of operation.

Continued stability, in Hobbes’s view can only be achieved if all people refrain from actions that may undermine the absolute regime. For instance, under no circumstances should people dispute the legality of the sovereign power or rebel against it. In general, Hobbes sought to demonstrate the reciprocal relationship that exists between political obedience and lasting peace.

In order for us to understand the need for an absolute government, Hobbes discusses how life would be like in a society where people live in a state of nature. A state of nature exists where there is not government. In this state, each person decides for himself what to do. Each person is the judge in his own case whenever there is a dispute. This is a state of private judgment in its most perfect sense, whereby not a single agency or recognized authority exists to arbitrate in disputes or an effective power to ensure the decisions arrived at are enforced.

Hobbes was opposed to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, in which he propounded the argument that a state of nature was preferred instead of subjection to an absolutely sovereign government, whose power was arbitrary. However, Hobbes famously argued that lack of laws and a highly coercive power would make it difficult, if not impossible, for maintenance of security, upon which a comfortable, civilized life depended. He argued that in a state of nature, life for man would be nasty, poor, brutish, solitary and short.

Many readers have criticized the idea of life in the state of nature according to Hobbes to be extremely pessimistic, that he arrives at normative and empirical assumptions that are individually plausible and therefore subjective. He bases his arguments from the premise that human beings have a strong tendency to “shun death”, that the urge preserve is so strong in every human being that one cannot help being partial such matters as moral judgments, perception of others as well as membership to religious groups.

Hobbes observes that although people are inclined towards religious beliefs in order to dispel fears of death, the content of each person’s beliefs differ according to the religious education that one has received. In terms of normative assumptions, Hobbes believes that in a state of nature, every person exercises a liberty right of self-preservation, a phenomenon he refers to as “the right of nature”. The right of nature refers to the freedom by an individual to do anything he feels is necessary for one’s preservation.

In Armitage’s assessment of Hobbes social contract theory, it is true to say that the right of nature is a theoretically limited right although in practice, the right easily becomes unlimited, whereby an individual can do anything for self-preservation (101). Hobbes refers to this as the “right to all things”. Further, he assumes the practical rationality principle. According to this principle, people should adopt to whatever they consider to be the most necessary means to the ends that they hold dearest.

Hobbes responds to the question of whether a state of nature has ever existed by giving three examples of states of nature in their putative form. First, he observes that sovereign states tend to exist in this state with respect and in relation to each other. This example made readers perceive Hobbes as a realist in matters of international relations. Secondly, he noted that many civilized people of ‘today’ were formerly in a state of nature; that the United States in his days was still in a state of nature. Thirdly, Hobbes significantly notes that a state of nature is most easily recognized by citizens of formerly peaceful states that have recently disintegrated into civil war.

Although the conception of a state of nature is a sort of an abstraction, something that resembles it is a possibility in this world, something that should be feared and avoided.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1982.

Armitage, David. “Hobbes And The Foundations Of Modern International Thought”, in Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Avineri, Shlomo. The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Chappell, Vere. The Cambridge Companion to Locke, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.