Question

In 1968, two members of the US Olympic team were suspended for raising their arms in a black power salute in support of the ongoing civil rights struggle during their medal ceremony in Mexico City.

Would Kant think the action of the athletes (engaging in protest/civil disobedience) was a moral action? Explain. (4 points)

Would Kant think their suspension was a moral action? Explain. (4 points)

HINT: remember that Kant's law is DIFFERENT from "the law" as we usually understand it since it's a moral law. Remember how we figure out if an action is moral or not (the formulations of the categorical imperative). Also, remember that this question of whether or not the action itself (protest against segregation specifically and racist policies more generally) is moral is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the question of whether the suspension by the Olympic Committee is moral.

Answer 1

Answer 1.

According to Kant’s political philosophy, the right to freedom is a significant moral right and no state power can be justified if it impinges on the free will and independence of another individual. By this virtue, a state which appears to curtail the freedom of action of individuals in a society can be questioned and goes against its moral responsibility. However, even in this case, acts of resistance or revolution cannot be justified as they go against the categorical imperative of mutual coexistence and acceptance of a social contract in the form of a legitimate government.

In other words, acts of resistance against oppressive state regimes such as the ones demonstrated by the athletes become morally questionable as they tend to go against the principle of social contract according to which individuals agree to compromise with some of their own personal choices and rights in order to uphold a general state of peace and harmony in society. To this end, the categorical imperative facing the athletes was to accept the legitimate authority of the state as the morally just agent to uphold and protect their own transcendental right to think and act freely without sabotaging the individual’s’ own choices.
Thus the very idea of protesting or rebelling such as the actions of the athletes, against the government is morally incoherent as a just condition of life is possible only when there is some means for individuals to be governed by the state that embodies the general will of the people.