KANT ON RIGHTS, STATE AUTHORITY, AND THE FALLACIOUSNESS OF REVOLUTION

Abstract

In his Metaphysics of Morals, specifically, the Doctrine of Right, Enlightenment philosopher 

Immanuel Kant addresses issues regarding the scope of the sovereign’s, ruler’s, judiciary’s, and the people’s roles, as outlined in their civil constitution. As hypothesized by Kant, although the people hold claim to rights distributed throughout their native or adopted country, they nevertheless do not possess the right to revolution, even under instances of tyranny. One problem arising from this odd Kantian conclusion is why is it that the authorities of the state, when thought of as the sovereign, ruler, and judiciary, possess exclusive rights that are absent in the people. First, this essay will address the nature of the people’s rights, as well as those powers Kant associates with the sovereign, ruler, and judiciary, respectively. Next, this piece will explore why it is that Kant believes the people, under no circumstance, should ever engage in revolution, or resistive practices. Lastly, this piece will argue in favor of Kant’s antirevolutionary views, because although the people possess inner freedoms that neither they nor any other aspect of the state can lawfully alienate, the state’s civic dignities still possess authority over external freedom. Thus, for the protection of the people, the state’s authorities must uphold and enforce the laws of the civil constitution so that the entirety of the civil society continues to be a realm in which all could remain internally free and enjoy their rights in a rightful setting.