Kant's Distinction between the Moral Politician and the Political Moralist
Bookmark this page

The distinction Kant makes is covered in Appendix I ("On the disagreement between morals and politics in relation to perpetual peace"). It is basically Kant's explanation of why perpetual peace can only be reached through reason, as opposed to force or political expediency.

Kant uses the metaphor of the moral politician and the political moralist to explain the way in which morality is necessary in politics, and the way in which politics is an applied branch of right. Morality, Kant argues, is a set of laws which states how our actions ought to be governed. As such, it is essentially practical. Given Kant's categorical imperative, we have a duty to act as morality informs us we should.

Although reason can not predict the consequences of all human actions, it can nevertheless tell us how to act if we wish to achieve our ultimate goal.

The man of practice disputes this - he says that one thing that we can tell is that men will never want to act how they ought to act in order to achieve their goal. They will not adhere to the constitution set out to achieve peace. Because of this, he argues, we need an additional factor to bring all men to realise this common good, coercive authority is necessary.

But, Kant argues, this won't work work. Given that the legislator will not act in a moral way, once the mass has been united into a people with a common will, it is doubtful that they will simply be left to create a lawful constitution. He will probably not allow them to rule him.

On an international level, a state will not allow its self to become subject to the opinions of others. If this was the case, one continent, feeling itself superior, would plunder another one.

Given these factors, the theory for perpetual peace can not work solely on the basis of force. But this does not mean that it can not take account of the empirical factors of human nature and shape its maxims according to them.

The Moral Politician

"Someone who conceives of the principles of political expediency in such a way that they can co-exist with his morality"

Kant approves of the moral politician because he is primarily moral. The moral politician is someone who adheres to moral principles, whilst attempting to reconcile these practical political expediency. For the moral politician, things are done out of duty.

The Political Moralist

"one who fashions his morality to suit his own advantage as a statesman"

Kant disapproves of the behaviour of the political moralist, who is primarily political. The political moralist is someone who fashions morality to suit his own advantage as a statesman. The political moralist sees things as a technical problem, and adapts morality to suit the problem at hand.

Given that the political moralist does not follow principles, because he rejects such a strategy, he is only in politics in order to "exploit the people" through despicable tricks. When they try to change things, they do so on the basis of previous experience, not on reason.

In the End, the Moral Politician will Succeed, whilst the Political Moralist will Eternalise the Violation of Right

Although moralising politicians may sometimes act despotically in their fervour to follow the principals decreed to them by reason, they are far better than political moralists, who make progress impossible. Political moralists cover up political principles that are contrary to right, arguing that humans will be unable to attain the good which reason prescribes. Moral politicians will eventually act with political prudence and thus overcome their "opposition to nature".

Other Notes in this Category

1. Context
2. Implementing Perpetual Peace
3. Kant's Distinction between the Moral Politician and the Political Moralist
4. Kant's Ideas on Republics and Democracies - Why Every State should have a Republican Constitution
5. Kant's Premises
6. Nature Wills Perpetual Peace

Didn't find this useful?

• Visit Coursework.Info for over 14,000 GCSE, A-Level and University Essays