Abstract

Kant's political philosophy contains a dilemma raised by his moral philosophy. If Kant defends the absolute sanctity of the individual, then it is difficult to see why he demands complete obedience to the de facto government, even the worst of tyrants. The confusion stems from the attempt to reconcile his avid defense of the absolute human dignity of each individual with his rejection of the right of revolution. The two seem, prima facie, to be inconsistent. After all, to defend human dignity it seems to be necessary that one be able to defend it against encroachments by the state. By not allowing revolution even under the worst of tyrants, Kant has put himself in the position of sacrificing individuals to the greater good of the pursuit of perpetual peace. ;But he has done this in a clever manner. He makes the pursuit of perpetual peace a duty, a duty that each individual possesses to himself. And it is in that duty that we find the obligation to obey any de facto government. Further, it is in that duty where we find that the argument Kant presents to support the categorical imperative itself relies on this pursuit. So the pursuit of perpetual peace leads Kant to advocate the absolute value of the individual human being while denying that individual the right to revolt against those attempting to enslave or even murder him. ;Curiously enough, Kant does defend human dignity against the state but in a way that drastically effects our understanding of what Kant means by human dignity. Kant's teleological standpoint puts him in a very unique position among moral and political philosophers that allows him to consistently hold both positions. Kant's entire moral and political philosophy needs to be understood as teleological to make it consistent. It is in the goal that nature has intended for humans , that we find both the defense of the categorical imperative and the defense of his rejection of a right to revolution