The Limits of Kantianism Towards a Project of Global Justice

Politikon: IAPSS Political Science Journal Vol. Nr. 20, June 2013

The Limits Of Kantianism Towards A Project Of Global Justice

Daniel NUNES PEREIRA1, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil

Abstract

estern societies believe they can improve human settlements all around the world by universal standards of justice, concerning mainly the distribution of wealth and sound democratic institutions. Such concern arises from the reflections regarding the hodiernal Wworld condition, which is, at large, vile and unjust. These two ways of improving human condition have their mains ideas established on the work of Immanuel Kant. This paper intends, therefore, to understand and foresee the limits and boundaries of these ideas specifically on the contemporary world – plural, polysemic and filled with theoretical uncertainties.

Keywords: Kant; Global Justice; Cosmopolitanism; Human Rights; Morality

1 Daniel Nunes Pereira, 26, is M.A candidate in Political Science and L.L.M. candidate in Sociology & Jurisprudence, both at Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) in Brazil. He received his Bachelor in Jurisprudence at Universidade Federal Fluminense in 2010, and on the same year attended at CPE in European History at the Universiteit Utrecht (U.U.) in Netherlands. His interests and fields of research include Political Theology, Philosophy of Law, Political Philosophy and Psychoanalysis. Email: [email protected]. English revision: Marcos Ceia; Email: [email protected] Daniel Nunes Pereira The Limits of Kantianism

I its countries. This scenario is not new, since the world has already testified rom the concern that the world at Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” – in this large is unjust arises the issue of bleak scenario Kantianism reaches its limits: F Global Justice, i.e., the idea that we should this theoretical universal moral and can improve society all around the world by shared citizenship overcome individuals and universal standards of justice, concerning traditional and endangered cultures? The mainly the distribution of wealth and sound understanding of human rights through democratic institutions. Through these two Kantian “lenses” looking forward to a main concerns lie two fundamental ideas, Global Justice challenges the tensions namely, cosmopolitanism (all human ethnic amongst increasing globalization, the so- groups belonging to a called "clash of civilizations", the crisis of single community) and universal morality, universalism, and the attempt to impose the i.e., Immanuel Kant’s theoretical constructs. cultures strengthened localisms. Though cosmopolitanism and universal morality roots until Hierocles and the This study deals with these aporias Platonists, respectively, it was Kant who of Kantian thought through the following gave it the consistence known today. expediency: a) review of the origins and meanings of cosmopolitanism and moral The Kantianism imbued in these two universalism in Kant b) Comments on the ideas is somewhat a response to Hobbes’s possible subversions of Kantian claims about the relation between justice and assumptions c) Commencement of solutions sovereignty, since the later understands to the problems raised from Jürgen political legitimacy and the principles of Habermas thought. justice on collective self-interest, rather than on any irreducibly moral premises.

II These two ideas, moral universalism and cosmopolitanism, can lead to dangerous

pathways on the international community. Cosmopolitanism as a worldview is Since every man and woman belongs to this not something new. It probably emerged in single global community that has its own ancient Greece, around the fourth century portentous universal moral with standards of B.C., alongside the conquests of Alexander justice, this same community shall protect the Great in the East. With these them by force, if necessary, through some of achievements, the Greek citizen began to

Politikon: IAPSS Political Science Journal Vol. Nr. 20, June 2013

think beyond the horizons of the city-state. principis superioris - (Schmitt, 2006: 152-166). Hellenism intellectually grew through The Absolute monarchs, towards the goal of contacts with other cultures and people, maintaining internal control over its own enhancing the ethos of citizen of the world territory, guaranteeing them the right of war (Brock, Brighouse, 2005: 3). Philosophically, and peace in international relations, included the Stoics, v.g., were the forerunners of new terms inscript on the "state of nature" cosmopolitanism, since they thought that Theory (Hobbes, 2005), even in self-acceptance was the way to reach things International Affairs. With the transition such as family, homeland and the human from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, race in general sense. (Brock, Brighouse, pacifism resurfaces among Christian thinkers 2005: 4-8). from the fourteenth century as, for example, the King of Bohemia Jiříz Poděbrad However, cosmopolitanism consigning the Congragatio Concordiae understood as matter of Jurisprudence (Odložilik, 1965), and Erasmus of (Rechtslehre) is a Kantian novelty. For Kant, Rotterdam proposing his Quaerela Pacis cosmopolitanism is not a philanthropy or a (Erasmus, 2004). fanciful representation, but it is a necessary complement to the unwritten codes of civil At the mainstay of these ideas, Kant law and international law to enable the underlies his conception of Perpetual Peace realization of fundamental principles aimed in determined conception of public law, that at the ideal of perpetual peace. (Kant, 2009: leads to some kind of Cosmopolitical 12-66). Jurisprudence as its highest expression

With the apparent ending of the Kantian philosophy is the maximum religious wars in Europe, the Peace of expression of the Enlightenment, and as Westphalia of 1648 consolidated the such, has a universal character. The starting required frames for a European international point of his analysis does not differ law, no longer based on the two highest substantially from other Illuminists such as medieval authorities – Pope and the Rousseau, Montesquieu or Hume. Kant Emperor, but based on the sovereignty of understands the relationship between the states. Therefore, it seemed to be the end of States as return to the “state of nature” in the medieval doctrine of Just War (justum some extent, which is a state of conflict and bellum), and sovereign states become the only injustice in which only states are subject of ones in a position to declare the legality of international relations and recognize no the war, no longer needing the approval of a higher authority. That is, according to Kant, higher authority – non expectata auctoritate Daniel Nunes Pereira The Limits of Kantianism

the main cause of the existence of a economic egalitarian commitments, then the permanent state of war between them. So, same is true for global justice. But the under Kant’s ideas, the overcoming of the political dimension of cosmopolitan justice absolute sovereignty of states and the is the focus here studied, and this concept of overcoming of war are processes that must cosmopolitanism is based on Kantian ideas go together. But the ultimate goal is to carry of individual rights and international law out a cosmopolitan project to all (Habermas, 1996: 20) Humankind and every individual, not Thus, the cosmopolitan kantian restricted to Europe or the so called jurisprudence is based on the fact that the Respublica Christiana. earth has a finite, spherical surface, and In contrast, the cosmopolitan therefore, humanity cannot spread to conception considers that the primary infinity, but is limited to live on this territory interest of global justice is to ensure justice common to all mankind. Although the for individuals in the world as a whole. It definition given by Kant of the earth as a assumes that all people, no matter where terraqueous globe – a mathematician- they are, have the right to equal care as geographical setting – such definition is citizens, and the purpose of justice is to closed and limited to the natural conditions ensure that global institutions and that make the possibility of interaction, international relations are governed by the however, composed towards some principle of individual equality. This means dynamicity. The world, of which Kant that global justice can not only be concerned speaks here, is man's place, one in which it with how states relate to each other, even if carries out its activity. And man, as an it is conditioned by the requirement that inhabitant of the land, is naturally a traveler. basic human rights must be domestically Thus, Kant saw humanity as a genuine respected. Under such cosmopolitan potential community for interaction – understanding, global justice would require, pacific, but not friendly. Kant routed on above all, that all societies should maintain some cosmopolitan Law the possibility of and aid their domestic institutions and social Mankind achieving the establishment of a policies that regard human dignity. perfect political organization.

In summary, the cosmopolitan This particular cosmopolitanism approach to global justice regards a depends on a specific notion of Men and its globalized liberal and egalitarian justice, and, Telos. In this sense it is noticeable that the to this point, one may assume some human being is differentiated in relation to

Politikon: IAPSS Political Science Journal Vol. Nr. 20, June 2013

other entities for being understood as a such a project is difficult in a pluralistic and "terminal end" (Scopus) under the mutable society. teleological order of the world. But what

does it means being terminal end of Creation? What qualifies Man as such? III According to Kant, Man, whilst existential category, needs no other purpose as a Contemporaneously to Kant the old condition of its possibility. It is therefore an Iberian colonialism had already entered into unconditioned being because it is not crisis, but another form of geopolitical and restricted simply to the cosmological or ethnical exploitation emerged (Cooper, 2005: mechanical laws of cause and effect and do 113) that accentuated during the so-called not serve (or should not serve) to the neo-colonialism, especially with the disputes purposes of any other being. This that would later foment the Great War. independence on the chain of purposes is Anyway, in both events of imperialist accredited by his supersensible capacity of practice there was some discourse of freedom to volition and rationality. "Westernization" (Stuchtey, 2011), then Especially, in this morality lies the centrality called “Christianization of the Barbarism” or of human as terminal end of creation, which later the "White Man's Burden." In such is rooted in a triple existential capacity: a discourses were laying beliefs that a universal free, rational and moral entity. These three and eminently true, unfeigned and veritable assumptions also form the basis of human ethnocentric morality should be taken and dignity, so that the just man is worthy of disciplined to other people (Stuchtey, 2011), being treated as an end in itself because it is since they all belonged to the same great and essentially free, rational, and therefore ineffable Godlike Earthly Project erected on autonomous. eurocentrism - it was therefore a kind of

Such dignity is deduced from a cosmopolitanism. specific understanding about morality. This But, in contrast, what is the is the stance of the Kantian metaethics humanistic foundation of Kant's system concerning a universal ethea, namely, cosmopolitan thesis? It is truly based on the universally applicable for all similarly very idea of communitarian ownership of situated individuals, regardless of race, the surface of Earth. Originally under the culture, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or ‘state of nature’, whilst physical possession any other distinguishing feature. Of course, (Possessio phaenomenon), all individuals have the same rights on the ground. The Earth is, Daniel Nunes Pereira The Limits of Kantianism

in this sense, a universal good. The very nowadays called world public opinion. “sphericity” of the Earth, being itself (Habermas, 2002: 197). circumscribed, constrains individuals and Kant himself, during his lifetime, nations to not isolate themselves infinitely, criticized the subverted cosmopolitanism of contracting, however, some sort of the imperialist European nations, and there relationship and, therefore, affect each other, are interpreters of the philosopher of what compels the creation of rules Königsberg that update his critiques, concerning the rights that should enables bringing it to today's reality. Western these volitions to coexist harmoniously. societies are structured upon capitalism and A central aspect of Kant's have been thriven in a multicultural context, Cosmopolitan Theory is the limitation of the composed of very different identities, under concept “visitation Rights” (Besuchsrecht). the ideological background of an alleged This has significant implications when its homogenization and universalization. The understood as opposed to the ethnocentric multiple cultures in those societies are part practices of European colonialist nations of a general culture where the logic of contemporaries to Kant. According to the capital puts its manifestations in a network author, these so-called "civilized" states were of mass production oriented towards unfair and abusive because they took the endless consumption. There is a simple right to visit the foreign land as a recrudescence of the interrelationships right of conquest and consecutively led all between individuals, understood as products forms of oppression to colonized peoples. and concomitantly producers of social For Kant, the European colonialists powers reality, magnifying the individualistic lived through a humbug, because on one organization and individualism. Considered hand they righteously follow their rites of as an ideology and moral base structuring of worship and religious orthodoxy, but on the capitalist society, individualism is under other, act on unfairly and vile ways towards constant mutation, showing strong tendency its “colonized subjects”. However, the to radicalization, amid an abundance of complaint and the combat against such human resources which, strictly speaking, injustices become plausible within the would be sufficient to provide human cosmopolitan speech, in the sense that a happiness. single violation of rights in one corner of the In this reality, there is a formalist Earth should be felt in every part of the abstraction of Kantian theories, pursuant to world. It is in this sense that Habermas currently invoking Aristotelian conviction points Kant as one who anticipated the

Politikon: IAPSS Political Science Journal Vol. Nr. 20, June 2013

that moral judgment is necessarily limited to "Western" is an abstract and fluid certain socio-cultural contexts, leading to an formulation, beneath it a pluralistic mosaic alleged waiver of the needing for of various traditions, sometimes emancipatory potential of moral antagonistic, being displayed. universalism, relinquishing to direct a It is considered that the possibility of scathing moral criticism towards unjust incorporating the idea of hodiernal standards social structures. Overcoming this problem of Human Rights as a pathway to continue of modern atomism using universalist ethics such tradition through a reinterpretation of of good only hampers the first issue, since the principle of Human Dignity, in order to that would rely on precursors of moral avoid an imperialist imposition of any legal universalism, id est, in a morality grounded code. However, the possibility of any in religious and cosmological universal moral principle cannot be imposed weltanschauungen, even more difficult to in relation to specific cultural contexts of the reconcile alongside the hodiernal world simply because any Ethical Discourse postmetaphysical thought than to the or Universality principle will not be teleological worldview of Aristotle performed independently at any real (Habermas, 1986: 125) Discourse of Praxis (Habermas, 1986). The Cultural relativism had undeniable principle of Universal Morality and a relevance towards raising questions about pragmatic transcendental reasoning (derived the alleged superiority of one race, or to from assumptions arisen from inevitable question the basis on which rested the speeches of a specific Reason) are not claims that classified people according to sufficient, however, to substantiate standards stages of development. However, the ideal of legal and moral demeanors. of tolerance then fetched currently The legitimacy of Modern encounters a series of obstacles supplied by Cosmopolitanism Theory and its Human the design of the relativist position, which Rights Laws must necessarily pass through seeks to establish it negating the possibility complementarities between individualism of judgment on behaviors of different and collectivism or communitarianism, people around the globe. Regarding the processes that are no longer merely analysis of an alleged Westernness of conflicting and, still, retain a tension and a Human Rights Standards, which would complementariness essentials for the compromise with a European cultural integration of morality in historical and tradition (perhaps understood as social contexts enabling to join Iura humana Imperialist), it is argued that the category within culture and society, not as an outer Daniel Nunes Pereira The Limits of Kantianism

levy, but as part of an institutionalized tidal Hobbes, Thomas. 2005. Leviathan oder process, complementing the many other Stoff, Form und Gewalt eines kirchlichen und staatlichen Gemeinwesens. Hambur: collective processes of political nature. Meiner Verlag.

Kant Immanuel. 2009. “Perpetual Peace, References a Philosophical Sketch”. In. An Answer to The Question: What Is Enlightment? London: Penguin Books.

Brock Gillian, BrighouseHarry. 2005. Odložilík, Otakar. 1965. The Hussite The Political Philosophy of King. Bohemia in European Affairs 1440– Cosmopolitanism. Cambridge: 1471. New Brunswick: Rutgers Cambridge University Press. University Press.

Cooper, Frederick, 2005. Colonialism in Schmitt, Carl. 2006. The Nomos of The Question: Theory, Knowledge, History. Earth. New York. Telos Press Oakland: University of California Publishing. Press. Stuchtey, Benedikt. 2011. “Colonialism Erasmus, Desiderius. 2004. Complaint and Imperialism, 1450-1950”. In. of Peace. New York: Cosimo European History Online, Publishing. Mainz: Institute of European History, 2011, retrieved: Feb. 02, 2013. Habermas, Jürgen. 2002. A Inclusão do Outro - Estudos de Teoria Política. São Paulo: Edições Loyola.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. “Kants Idee des ewigen Friedens – aus dem historischen Abstand von zweihundert Jahren“. In: Lutz-Bachmann, M., Bohman, J. 1996. Frieden durch Recht. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1986. “Moralität und Sittlichkeit. Treffen Hegels Einwände gegen Kant auch auf die Diskursethik zu?” In: Kuhlmann, Wolfgang. 1986. Moralität und Sittlichkeit. Das Problem Hegels und die Diskursethik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.