Freedom Under the Law: Right and Revolution in Kant's Theory of Justice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science Freedom Under the Law: Right and Revolution in Kant‘s Theory of Justice Alison Mallard A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, December 2011 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 78, 673 words. 2 Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to thank Professor Katrin Flikschuh, who has given me unfailing guidance and support in my navigation of Kant's thought, and in my development and completion of this thesis. In her own academic work she has given me both inspiration and aspiration. My thanks also to Dr. Alex Voorhoeve for his advice and guidance, and for helping me find confidence in my writing. I am also grateful for the support and contribution of the Government Department Political Theory group, and in particular, Drs Camillia Kong and Katy Dineen. They have been colleagues and companions in my struggles with Kant, and friends in everything else. My thanks also go to the Economic and Social Research Council, for their financial support of this thesis, and to the London School of Economics and Political Science for its additional aid. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Sally and Peter, and my sister, Rosemary, without whose support and understanding I would not have been able to complete such a project. Also to Richard, for living through the struggles of this last year with me, and reminding me that there is life beyond the PhD. They all believed in me, and in this thesis, and in doing so, helped me to believe in it too. 3 Abstract This thesis addresses the "air of paradox" that continues to plague Kant's absolute prohibition of revolution. In seeking to identify the source of this contention, I investigate a possible inconsistency within Kant's Doctrine of Right as a doctrine of external freedom. Taking my lead from Christine Korsgaard's idea of ―perverted justice‖, I explore the idea that states can exist that undermine their own purpose, in their denial of the freedom which is their end. Establishing the possibility of perverted justice takes us into an inquiry into the nature of Kant's moral theory as a theory of freedom, and specifically, the particular kind of freedom that Right takes as its end. I take the contrast between the ethical and juridical domains as my point of departure, defending Kant's strict division between the two domains. In doing so I defend the moral status of Right against commentators who exclude it on grounds of its external nature, arguing for a conception of practical freedom that is broader than the internal freedom of autonomy, and hence can include Right under its scope. From this I offer an account of external freedom as acting in accordance with the Universal Principle of Right, which is nothing more than the constraint of one's choice under universal law. In conclusion, I argue that Right (justice) cannot be frustrated in the way that Korsgaard's idea of perverted justice suggests, due to the formal nature of external freedom. Obedience to positive law cannot deny external freedom in the way she suggests; rather, our constraint under law is constitutive of our freedom as the end of political society. There is therefore no inconsistency to be found within Kant's Doctrine of Right between the idea of external freedom as the end of Right and his absolute prohibition of revolution. 4 Abbreviations CF The Contest of the Faculties CPR Critique of Pure Reason CprR Critique of Practical Reason IUH Idea for a Universal History G Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals ML Lectures on Metaphysics MM The Metaphysics of Morals PP Toward Perpetual Peace (‗Perpetual Peace‘) R Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (‗Religion‘) RS Review of Schulz TP On the Common Saying: ‗That may be correct in theory, but it is of no use in practice‘ (‗Theory and Practice‘) WIE An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (‗What is Enlightenment‘) Full details of editions used are listed in the Bibliography 5 Contents Page Introduction page 8 1) Setting up the problem 10 2) Kant‘s prohibition of revolution 16 3) Challenges to Kant‘s position: his philosophy of history and his conception of 25 law 4) The argument of this thesis 30 Chapter 1: Korsgaard’s argument for taking the law into our own hands 35 and the idea of perverted justice 1) Korsgaard‘s argument for revolution 37 2) Resituating the idea of ―perverted justice‖ in the juridical domain 49 Chapter 2: Kant’s Doctrine of Right and external laws as laws of freedom 60 1) The ethicisation of Kant‘s doctrine of morals 62 2) Defending the morality of Right: incentive and freedom in Kant‘s doctrine of 71 morals 3) Defending the morality of Right against the Groundwork‘s morality 82 Chapter 3: "Merely" practical accounts of moral freedom 95 1) Kant‘s two concepts of freedom 96 2) Korsgaard‘s purely practical account of moral freedom 103 3) Practical freedom as spontaneity in Henry Allison's "merely practical" 115 account 4) Critiquing Allison's account: the insufficiency of his Incorporation Thesis as a 128 ground for Kant's critical moral theory Chapter 4: Practical freedom as acting on principle 141 1) Freedom as spontaneity and the imputability of evil acts: Beck‘s account of 143 practical freedom 2) Paul Guyer‘s interpretation of practical freedom as acting on principle 155 3) Finalising a picture of practical freedom as acting on principle 165 6 Chapter 5: External freedom and the morality of Right 179 1) The universal principle of Right and man‘s freedom of choice 181 2) substantive versus formal interpretations of external freedom 187 3) The interpersonal nature of external freedom 196 4) External freedom as law-governed action in accordance with the universal 209 principle of Right Chapter 6: A re-examination of perverted justice and the case for reform 214 1) The nature of Right and its contrast to ethics 215 2) Perverted justice and the formal nature of Right 219 3) The relation of Right to Politics and the actualization of freedom: history, 228 practice and reform in Kant‘s political philosophy Concluding remarks 251 Bibliography 253 7 Freedom under the Law: Right and Revolution in Kant’s Theory of Justice Introduction Kant‘s position on revolution is given in no unclear terms. It is in ―the highest degree wrong‖, treason that ―must be punished by nothing less than death‖. Its prohibition is absolute, and stands even in cases of the ―unbearable abuse of supreme authority‖ (PP 8:382; MM 6:320). He retains this prohibition across all his works on political philosophy, from the pre-critical historical essays to his main systematic treatment of Right in the Metaphysics of Morals. However, despite the apparent strength and consistency of Kant‘s arguments, many commentators nonetheless see a need to challenge Kant‘s absolute prohibition.1 John Stuart Mill offers some insight into our dissatisfaction with Kant‘s position, writing against philosophies of absolute obedience that such a policy ―would often protect pernicious institutions against the only weapons which, in the state of things existing at the time, have any chance of succeeding against them‖.2 Mill expresses the common concern that an absolute prohibition of revolution puts the weight of advantage on the side of despots and tyrants, and deprives people in the most oppressive and tyrannical states of their only means of protecting themselves. This concern is still prevalent in contemporary thought on revolution. As J. Angelo Corlett argues, while very few people would unconditionally support a right to political violence, many still believe it to be an important limiting condition on the 1 Hill, T., ―Questions About Kant‘s Opposition to Revolution‖ in The Journal of Value Inquiry 36: 283–298, 2002, p. 283 2 Mill, J.S., Utilitarianism (2nd edn.). (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2001), p. 44 8 power of authoritarian and oppressive regimes. 3 Even those who are wary of overly permissive arguments in favour of political violence nonetheless warn that ―[i]t would be just as wrong, however, to interpret revolution too restrictively‖.4 These authors represent a general trend within liberal political theory to oppose an absolute prohibition of revolution in protection of basic rights and freedoms. This trend has led a number of commentators to reject Kant‘s position on grounds of a purported inconsistency between his absolute prohibition on the one hand and his commitment to freedom on the other. The suspicion is that a theory of justice as freedom must somehow make allowance for violent action against the state, at least in certain extreme cases. Commentators have therefore explored all different parts of Kant‘s writings—his Doctrine of Right, his ethics, and his philosophy of history— in seeking to identify the precise nature of this inconsistency, and find a more moderate view on revolution.