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 92 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 94 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