Question

Why does Kant think that a 'common will' is necessary for the implementation of an ethical State? Then consider what Kant thinks needs to happen in order to bring that 'will' about. Does this contradict the very possibility of an ethical politics? Why/why not?

Answer 1

Kant's position is characterized by strong suspicion of any form of civil disobedience. Kant does not seem to allow any challenge to legal authority, for example, to reject the right of revolution or rebellion even when the head of state violates a contract that originally recognized his legitimate claim to power. However, our central claim in this article is that there are limits to the canton on civil obedience. Sometimes there will be contradictions between our claim of what Kant's position should be and what it really is. To deal with such contradictions, we may make a distinction between Kant's position and Kantian's. We will use the word Kantian for any of the things Kant maintains explicitly or something that follows his general attitude --- even if in his writings carries the opposite. We must say that a certain claim is Kant's position only when it is clear and unattainable that he defends it. This distinction allows us to put Kant's ideas in a coherent form, although he has never articulated these claims. In this article is our goal to find the limits of Kantian to civil obedience.

We will follow Kant's writings diligently, but we will not try to clean the potential contradictions aside. Kant believes that the only way to resolve this apparent conflict is to distinguish between phenomena, which we know through experience, and noumena, which we can constantly think but do not know through experience. Our knowledge and understanding of the experiential world, Kant says, can arise only within our cognitive and cognitive capacities. However, we must not assume that we know all that may be true about "things in themselves", although we lack the "intellectual intuition" that will be required to identify such things. These differences, according to Kant, allow us to resolve the "contradiction" of free will by interpreting the "thesis" that may be free will, as in noumena and the "opposites" that each event has as a cause.

Thus, morality assumes that agents, in a "clear world" that is incomprehensible, are able to make things happen through their free choices in a "reasonable world" in which causal determinism is correct. Although there is no constitutive structure of moral and positive law, Kant argues with organizational synthesis: It is our duty to hope that one day coincides with ethical and positive law. It is not only our negative duty to hope for such an improvement, but duty requires us to act as well. We must say that for a Canati citizen, it is the duty to think freely and criticize laws that do not conform to the transcendental principles of the state. There is no guarantee that our criticism will improve the Constitution, but propaganda is the only hope for any moral improvement of the law.