Search
Submit an article RU
Kantian Journal

2023 Vol. 42. №2

Back to the list Download the article
ENG
Сохранить XML для: JATS (вып.)
RUS
Сохранить XML для: JATS (вып.)
Zilber A. S.

Kant and the New Enlightenment: On the Balance between Duty and Utilitarian Ends

DOI
10.5922/0207-6918-2023-2-3
Pages
40-67
egoism sociability balance the Club of Rome publicity provisionality conflict planning perspective

Abstract

The relation between Kant’s philosophy and the “philosophy of balance” as it is described in the report Come on! Capitalism, Short-termism, Population and the Destruction of the Planet, delivered to the Club of Rome in 2018, requires some analysis. The authors of the report consider Kant to be a philosopher of European Enlightenment which laid the foundations of the modern world, but also proved to be the source of global problems. The report characterises the philosophy of the Enlightenment as lop-sided rationalism which dismisses everything that does not possess desirable properties. In exchange, the authors offer a philosophy of balance, described in several points as the balance between conflicting values. The overarching problem of the philosophy of balance is the restraining of egoism. For this reason I first examine the relationship between duty and human inclinations in Kant’s ethics. I then demonstrate that the topic of political forecasts and the recommendations which Kant prescribes both in his philosophy of history and in his reflections on politics, right and justice, essentially boils down to three points of the philosophy of balance: the balance between development and justice (Kantian republicanism), between the speed and stability of development (external policy, the Kantian peace project), and between the short-term and long-term perspectives (reform policy). I then touch upon the problem of the implementation of Kantian principles in politics in the light of the reception of Kant in the modern theories of social conflicts, the communication theory of J. Habermas and the justice theory of J. Rawls. The overall conclusion is that Kant’s philosophy is not a philosophy of exclusion, capitalist values and utilitarianism and is not their ideological basis.

Reference

Anscombe, E., 1958. Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy. The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, 33(124), pp. 1-19.

Bakhurst, D., 2022. Categorical Moral Requirements. Kantian Journal, 41(1), pp. 40-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2022-1-2.

Castillio, М., 2013. The Policy of Cosmopolitism: From Universalism to Pluralism. Translated by D. Е. Fetisova. Kantian Journal, 2(44), pp. 19-32. (In Rus.)

Cavallar, G., 1992. Pax Kantiana: systematisch-historische Untersuchung des Entwurfs „Zum ewigen Frieden” (1795) von Immanuel Kant. Wien: Böhlau.

Chaly, V. A., 2013. John Rawls’ Interpretation of Categorical Imperative in “Theory of Justice”. Kantian Journal, 2(44), pp. 33-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2013-2-3. (In Rus.)

Chaly, V. A., 2023. Reclaiming the “Cultural Mandate”: The Idea of Sustainable Development in the Kantian Perspective. Kantian Journal, 42(2), pp. 68-94. http://dx.doi:10.5922/0207-6918-2023-2-4.

Deligiorgi, K., 2005. Kant and the Culture of Enlightenment. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ellis, E., 2008. Provisional Politics. Kantian Arguments in Policy Context. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Garve, C., 1788. Abhandlung über die Verbindung der Moral mit der Politik, oder einige Betrachtungen über die Frage, in wiefern es möglich sey, die Moral des Privatlebens bey der Regierung der Staaten zu beobachten. Breslau: bey W. G. Korn.

Gauthier, D., 1985. Moral by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Habermas, J., 1996. Kants Idee des Ewigen Friedens — aus dem historischen Abstand von 200 Jahren. In: J. Habermas, 1996. Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur politischen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 293-319.

Habermas, J., 2004. Der gespaltene Westen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Kant, I., 1991. On the Common Saying: this May Be True in Theory, But it Does not Apply in Practice. In: I. Kant, 1991. Political Writings. Edited by H. S. Reiss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61-63.

Kant, I. 1999. Metaphysical Elements of Justice. Translated by J. Ladd. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett.

Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kant, I., 2002. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by W. S. Pluhar. Cambridge and Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Kant, I., 2006a. An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? In: I. Kant, 2006. Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. Edited and with an introduction by P. Kleingeld; translated by D. L. Colclasure. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp. 4-23.

Kant, I., 2006b. Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective. In: I. Kant, 2006. Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. Edited and with an introduction by P. Kleingeld; translated by D. L. Colclasure. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp. 3-16.

Kant, I., 2006c. Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. In: I. Kant, 2006. Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. Edited and with an introduction by P. Kleingeld; translated by D. L. Colclasure. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp. 67-109.

Kant, I., 2006d. The Contest of the Faculties, Part 2. In: I. Kant, 2006. Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. Edited by P. Kleingeld; translated by D. L. Colclasure. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp. 150-163.

Kant, I., 2009. Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason. Translated by W. S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Nagl-Docekal, H., 2021. Why Kant’s “Ethical State” Might Prove Instrumental in Challenging Current Social Pathologies. Kantian Journal, 40(4), pp. 156-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2021-4-6.

Rawls, J., 1999. A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Renz, U., 2021. Der Schatten der Tugend. Kant über die unergründliche Tiefe des Herzens. Kantian Jour­nal, 40(4), pp. 11-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2021-4-2.

Solovyov, E. Yu. Kategoricheskij imperativ nravstvennosti i prava [Categorical Imperative of Morality and Law]. Mocsow: Progress-Tradicija, 2005.

Startseva, A. and Sabanov, A. O., 2021. Immanuel Kant and the “New Enlightenment”. International Conference Report. Kantian Journal, 42(1), pp. 132-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2023-1-7.

Sticker, M., 2021. Poverty, Exploitation, Mere Things and Mere Means. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 26, pp. 191-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10677-021-10238-9.

Sticker, M., 2022. Who Is Rationalising? On an Over­looked Problem for Kant’s Moral-Psychology and Method of Ethics. Kantian Journal, 41(1), pp. 7-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2022-1-1.

Stolleis, M., 1972. Staatsräson, Recht und Moral in philosophischen Texten des späten 18. Jahrhunderts. Meisenheim am Glan: Hein.

Ugleva, A. V., 2022. Broken Facets of Ethical Universalism. Commentary on the Book Universality in Moral­ity. Kantian Journal, 41(2), pp. 122-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2022-2-5.

Weizsäcker, E. U. von and Wijkman, A., 2018. Come on! Capitalism, Short-termism, Population and the Destruction of the Planet. A Report to the Club of Rome. New York: Springer.

Zagirnyak, M., 2021. Sociability and education in Kant and Hessen. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55(6), pp. 1112-1125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12619.

Zhavoronkov, A. G., 2019. Social Aspects of Kant’s Anthropology and Their Influence on the 20th Century Sociology: Problems and Cases. Voprosy Filosofii, 12, pp. 187-197 (In Rus.)

Zhavoronkov, A. G., 2021. Kant, Rawls and the Problem of Public Use of Pragmatic Reason. Social Sciences and Contemporary World, 2, pp. 114-125. (In Rus.)

Zilber, A. S., 2016. How Transcendental are Kant’s Principles of Public Law? Kantian Journal, 1(55), pp. 34-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2016-1-3.

Zilber, A. S., 2020. Inadvisable Concession: Kant’s Critique of the Political Philosophy of Christian Garve. Kantian Journal, 39(1), pp. 58-76. http://dx.doi:10.5922/ 0207-6918-2020-1-3.

Zilber, A. S., Lugovoy, S. V., 2021. I. Kant’s Conservative Liberalism from the Standpoint of E. Burke’s Liberal Conservatism. The Philosophy Journal, 14(3), pp. 50-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2021-14-3-50-64. (In Rus.)