Sunday, February 2, 2014

Reading questions on Kant's "Idea for a Universal History ..."

Some of these questions are not explicitly answered in the text.


  1. Why can we not perceive a rational purpose in the actions of human beings?
  2. How would a purpose in nature govern human actions?
  3. How is antagonism a natural purpose for Kant? 
  4. Is there a difference between a natural purpose and a natural instrument?
  5. Does Locke think that antagonism, or the state of war, is a natural purpose?
  6. Give your own examples of both aspects of man's unsocial sociability.
  7. What constitutes a just civil constitution for Kant?
  8. Why is human being an animal that needs a master?
  9. How are states and individuals like one another, according to Kant? 
  10. What contemporary international body is like the organization of states that Kant describes (hint: it's not the US)?
  11. Does Kant also believe private property plays a important role in history (like Locke)?
  12. In what sense does Kant think that humans are rational beings?

1 comment:

  1. Response to question #8:

    Human beings have a selfish nature. We tend to do what is best for ourselves and not always think about how our actions affect others. If there were no leaders, or “masters” as Kant puts it, we would have no restrictions on our freedom. That means we would be able to do whatever our selfish hearts desired at the expense of anyone around us. We could cause harm to others seeking our own personal gain. In Kant’s sixth thesis, he discusses how important it is that man has a master who, “will break his will and force him to obey a will that is universally valid, under which each can be free.” In other words, we need a leader who will make rules to protect everyone’s rights and freedoms. Under the same master, a society can live under a common rule that will benefit everyone, not just individuals. Of course, that is easier said than done. Kant also points out the difficulties in finding a master who would not be selfish. Any elected official or group of officials could be corrupt and enforce laws that benefit them. Kant recognizes that finding a just leader who would not be selfish or corrupt is very difficult. And, if the leader abuses his power, what is to stop the people from abusing their freedoms? A corrupt leader will bring about a corrupt society, but no leader at all will threaten the rights and freedoms of everyone.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.