We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 April 2010
Charles Taylor begins his essay “Kant's Theory of Freedom” by stating that in the last three centuries people have sought recognition, equality and justice as corollaries of “liberation”. The process, he says, “has been punctuated, and partly shaped, by paradigm statements by major thinkers …. Among these statements, Kant's has been very important. It marked a crucial step on the way.” Similar sentiments are expressed by Hayek, Rawls and others.
1 Taylor, Charles, “Kant's Theory of Freedom”, in Pelczynski, Zbigniew and Gray, John, eds., Conceptions of Liberty in Political Philosophy (London: Ashlone, 1984), 100–122, 100.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Scruton, Roger, A Dictionary of Political Thought (London: Macmillan, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, article “Kant”. Also Gray, John, Hayek on Liberty (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984), 4ffGoogle Scholar., and Gutman, Amy, Liberal Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 36.Google Scholar
3 Vaughan, Charles Edwyn, Studies in the History of Political Philosophy, Vol. 2 (London: Longman's and Green, 1925), 64ffGoogle Scholar. This divergence of interpretation is mirrored in some New Left writing, when Lucien Goldmann interpreted him as a champion of liberty, while Marcuse (more correctly, I believe) saw him as advocating an oppressive political theory. Goldmann, Lucien, Immanuel Kant (London: New Left Books, 1971)Google Scholar. this is discussed in chapter 9 of Williams, Howard, Kant's Political Philosophy (New York: Saint Martins Press, 1983).Google Scholar
4 Dewey, John, German Philosophy and Politics (New York: Henry Holt, 1915), 29.Google Scholar
5 Dewey, John, “The One World of Hitler's National Socialism”, The Middle Works 1899–1924, Vol. 8 (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1979), 421–446.Google Scholar
6 Santayana, George, Egotism in German Philosophy (New York: Charles Scribner, 1915), 64.Google Scholar
7 Ibid., 7.
8 Ibid., 8.
9 Vorlaender, Karl, Immanuel Kant, Der Mann und das Werk, Vol. 2 (Hamburg: Meiner, 1977), 367ff.Google Scholar
10 von Humboldt, Wilhelm, The Limits of State Action, Burrow, J. W., ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Kant, Immanuel, “Ueber den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht fuer die Praxis”, Berlinische Monatsschrift (09 1793)Google Scholar, Kant's Gesammelte Schriften, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1903ffGoogle Scholar. (henceforth Akad.), Vol. 8, 273–313.
12 Akad. 8, 290.Google Scholar
13 Williams, , Kant's Political Philosophy, 72Google Scholar, links the two statements.
14 Akad. 12, 283f.Google Scholar
15 Akad. 6, 424.Google Scholar
16 Akad. 6, 423.Google Scholar
17 Cf. Douglas, William, Summary Historical and Political, Vol. 2 (Boston: Rogers & Fowle, 1749–1752), 412ff.Google Scholar
18 In Akad. 15, 971–976Google Scholar. He had had a request similar to the count's from the medical faculty at the University of Halle. Cf. the letter from Professor Juncker, Akad. 12, 314.Google Scholar
19 Akad. 15, 972, 974, 976.Google Scholar
20 Ibid., 973, 975.
21 Ibid., 976.
22 Ibid., 971. I have no doubt that he took this argument from Malthus. Chapter five of the Essay on Population (which had been published the previous year) gives as factors that tend to curb population (other than shortage of sustenance) “vicious customs with respect to women, great cities, unwholesome manufactures, luxury, pestilence and war”. The last three are those mentioned by Kant, and the first triple probably did not pose a problem in Prussia. The reason for thinking Kant was influenced by Malthus is that, though in Britain there had been a tradition of concern with increasing population (Hume, Adam Smith, William Payley, Wallace), there had been none in Kant's earlier writing, or even in the German literature. Quite the contrary, the “Cameralists”, e.g., Jung, Johann Heinrich, Grundlehren der Staatswirthschaft (Marberg: Krieger, 1793)Google Scholar, and others, suggested that under proper management a larger population increases wealth.
23 Akad. 15, 973.Google Scholar
24 I.e., is worthless, mean. ibid., 974.
25 Ibid., 972.
26 Metaphysics of Morals, Doctrine of Right 2, General Note El, Akad. 6, 335f.Google Scholar
27 Metaphysics of Morals, Doctrine of Virtue §6, Akad. 6, 423.Google Scholar
28 He also, it turns out, opposed vaccination when he heard of it, for yet different reasons, although, as far as was then known, it provided immunity without untoward side-effects. We also discover that his moral authority was not highly regarded even locally, since in 1801 his friend Motherby inoculated a boy who had previously been vaccinated to determine the efficacy of the latter procedure. Cf. Akad. 15, 970–971 note.Google Scholar
29 Ibid., 976.
30 Metaphysics of Morals, Doctrine of Right 2, General Note E, Akad. 6, 331ff.Google Scholar
31 Theory and Practice §2, Akad. 8, 289f.Google Scholar
32 Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Akad. 5, 333f.Google Scholar
33 Idea to a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent, Akad. 8, 23.Google Scholar
34 Akad. 6, 113.Google Scholar
35 “On Theory and Practice”, Akad. 8, 290.Google Scholar
36 Vorlaender II, 368. Vorlaender does not document the matter, but, if true, it would show some influence of Kant in political matters.
37 Max Stirner (Johann Kaspar Schmidt), “Einiges Vorlaeufige vom Liebesstaat” (Mannheim, 1845), in Mackay, John Henry, ed., Kleinere Schriften (Berlin: Schuster & Loeffler, 1898), 71–80.Google Scholar
38 “On Theory and Practice”, Akad. 8, 295.Google Scholar
39 Metaphysics of Morals, Doctrine of Right §46, Akad. 6, 314–315.Google Scholar
40 Barry, Brian, The Liberal Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 127. The preceding sentence is also partly paraphrased from Barry.Google Scholar
41 Critique of Judgment, B 295, note, Akad. 5, 376.Google Scholar
42 Akad. 8, 425ff.Google Scholar
43 Metaphysics of Morals, Doctrine of Right, Introduction, General Classification of Rights, Akad. 6, 238, note.Google Scholar
44 Metaphysics of Morals, Doctrine of Right, §39, Akad. 6, 302–303.Google Scholar
45 This essay must be understood as a contribution to an ongoing debate. I tried to set out problems more than advance solutions, and have therefore not made revisions in answer to the acute criticisms of my respondents and the splendid comments Professor Weinrib has recently sent me. I extend them my thanks.
