Abstract
Facing the various current phenomena of crisis, many people have come to think that politics, including decisions with regard to economy, needs to be based upon morality. Significantly, this opinion implies some kind of separation: As the cultivation of a moral attitude is considered a prerequisite for sound politics, morality itself is assumed to be independent from politics. The intention of the chapter is to challenge this assumption. The first part explains, referring to Kant, that the moral demand to respect everybody as a ‘person’ implies that we must consider the uniqueness of the individual. On this basis it is argued, firstly, that we cannot adequately answer the needs of others unless we learn to listen carefully to the ways in which individual perspectives are being expressed; secondly, that the diversity of individual experiences and expectations cannot be properly voiced unless there exists a legal framework that secures freedom of expression. Consequently, the point is that liberal politics constitutes a prerequisite for a comprehensive implementation of moral guidelines. Explaining this thesis, the chapter refers to contemporary conceptions of ‘world citizenship’ and ‘global democracy’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Kant (1964) . (Henceforth cited as gm, p. 96.)
- 2.
For a more thorough analysis of Kant ’s conception of “autonomy” see Nagl-Docekal (2010).
- 3.
For a study focusing on the relevance of Kant ’s conception of “dignity” in the contemporary debate on “human rights” see Tiedemann (2007).
- 4.
For a detailed account of the “duties to oneself,” see Kant (1991a) . (Henceforth cited as mm).
- 5.
The relevance of these considerations for a philosophical theory of feminist politics is discussed in Nagl-Docekal (2004a) .
- 6.
While the term “the rights of man” used in this English translation has a masculine frame, this is not the case with Kant ’s German expression: The term “Rechte der Menschen” is gender neutral. See Kant (1963) .
- 7.
Arendt (1998). (Henceforth cited as ah .)
- 8.
- 9.
Drawing upon Kant ’s “duties of kindness” also allows us to tackle the care versus justice controversy that has been one focus of the debate on feminist ethics. On the basis of the categorical imperative the two approaches that have been considered mutually exclusive – an ethics of care and a universalist concept of morality – prove to be not only reconcilable but rather necessarily intertwined. For a more thorough elaboration on this issue see Nagl-Docekal (1997) .
- 10.
A precise philosophical assessment of paternalism is provided by Gadamer (1982) .
- 11.
In German: “logische Egoisterei.” See Kant (1910–1968).
- 12.
See, for instance, Arendt (1961).
- 13.
Kant (1952) . (Henceforth cited as cj.)
- 14.
See Kant (1983a) . (Henceforth cited as we .)
- 15.
The remaining maxims are: “(1) to think for oneself,” and “(3) always to think consistently” (cj: 152). Kant explains: “We may say: the first of these is the maxim of understanding, the second that of judgement, the third that of reason” (cj: 153).
- 16.
Arendt (1982) . (Henceforth cited as lk .)
- 17.
Seyla Benhabib observes that in Arendt ’s reading of Kant , “judging becomes a […] capacity for presenting to oneself the perspectivality of the world, of taking cognizance of the many points of view through which a matter must be seen and evaluated.” See Benhabib (1996) .
- 18.
See Habermas (1994).
- 19.
Rawls (1971). (Henceforth cited as tj.)
- 20.
For a recent reflection on this matter see Pogge (2010).
- 21.
Unfortunately, this way of reading Kant has predominated with authors advocating the approaches of Transcendental Pragmatics and Communicative Action.
- 22.
Kant (1998b) . (Henceforth cited as rr.)
- 23.
- 24.
A more detailed explanation of this difference is provided in Nagl-Docekal (2004b) . (Henceforth cited as ru.)
- 25.
Kant (1983c) . (Henceforth cited as pp .)
- 26.
A recent debate has raised doubts whether the two core concepts of political theory – freedom and equality – can be brought into a balanced relation. But this debate was based upon a more specific reading of the two concepts and did, therefore, not concern Kant ’s formal understanding – and his mode of linking – them. For an overview see Pauer-Studer and Nagl-Docekal (2003).
- 27.
Guyer (2004) . Guyer also points out that Rawls ’s conception of the social contract is clearly more restricted than Kant ’s.
- 28.
See Habermas (1996). (Henceforth cited as fn.)
- 29.
See Habermas (1984) .
- 30.
Wingert (2002) . (“Reasons are propositions, stated in using concepts, that seek to reach consent which is based upon comprehension, i.e., consent to that for which the propositions claim to provide the reasons. Justifying reasons are the signposts along the path that we need to take in order to achieve comprehension.” Transl. h. n.-d.)
- 31.
The term “globalization ” is used here in a wide sense which covers relations in a variety of fields, including science and culture. In current everyday language, this term often has a more narrow meaning with a clearly negative ring; in that case it refers to the economic and political dynamic defined by neo-liberal conceptions.
- 32.
Benhabib (2002). (Henceforth cited as cc .)
- 33.
Pogge (2002). (Henceforth cited as wp.) Pogge refers here, i.e., to the arguments developed in Singer (1972) . Pogge insists that all our obligations to help and support distant strangers can be derived from the concept of ‘negative’ duties. There is, however, no need for such a theoretical restriction since, as pointed out in this chapter, the concept of (wide) ‘duties of kindness,’ as introduced by Kant , is well argued. In her critical assessment of both Singer ’s and Pogge ’s approaches Bleisch also draws upon Kant ’s ‘duties of kindness.’ See Bleisch (2010).
- 34.
- 35.
See, for instance, the data provided in wp. For a specific focus on the deterioration of the situation of women in the global South see Jaggar (2002).
- 36.
For a careful analysis of Kant ’s conception from a contemporary point of view see Rademacher (2010).
- 37.
Kant (1991b) . (This edition is used here because the translation of Kant ’s Perpetual Peace from which the other quotations are taken does not contain this sentence.)
- 38.
For a lucid comment see Brandt (1995) .
- 39.
See, for instance, the account provided in Jaggar (2003).
- 40.
- 41.
Held (1995). (Henceforth cited as dg.)
- 42.
Benhabib (2004); see also cc.
- 43.
See the chapter “On Duties to Oneself as Such” (mm: 214–242).
- 44.
For details on the differences between – and the parallel structures of – the “political” and the “ethical” state in Kant , see ru.
- 45.
Earlier versions of this chapter were read at the University of Riga, Latvia (May 7, 2010), and at the 29th Annual Conference of the International Association for Philosophy and Literature (iapl) in Helsinki, Finland (June 7, 2005). I am much obliged for the comments made in the dicussions following these presentations.
Reference
Anderson-Gold, S. (2001). Unnecessary evil: History and moral progress in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Albany: State University of New York.
Anderson-Gold, S. (2004). Evil and enlightenment in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. In H. Nagl-Docekal & R. Langthaler (Eds.), Recht – Geschichte – Religion. Die Bedeutung Kants für die Gegenwart (pp. 113–122). Berlin: Akademie.
Anderson-Gold, S. (2005). Kantische Grundlagen des gegenwärtigen Kosmopolitismus. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 53, 97–109.
Arendt, H. (1961). Between past and future: Six exercises in political thought. New York: Meridian.
Arendt, H. (1979). Vom Leben des Geistes: Vol. 2. Das Wollen. München: Pieper.
Arendt, H. (1982). Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Arendt, H. (1998). Arbeiten, Herstellen, Handeln. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 46, 997–1009.
Benhabib, S. (1996). The reluctant modernism of Hannah Arendt. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.
Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture. Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others. Aliens, citizens and residents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bleisch, B. (2010). Pflichten auf Distanz. Weltarmut und individuelle Verantwortung. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Brandt, R. (1995). Vom Weltbürgerrecht. In O. Höffe (Ed.), Klassiker Auslegen: Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden (pp. 133–148). Berlin: Akademie.
Brunkhorst, H. (1999). Hannah Arendt. München: Beck.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1982). Truth and method. New York: Cross Road.
Guyer, P. (2004). Civic responsibility and the kantian social contract. In H. Nagl-Docekal & R. Langthaler (Eds.), Recht – Geschichte – Religion. Die Bedeutung Kants für die Gegenwart (pp. 27–47). Wien/München/Berlin: Oldenbourg/Akademie.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
Habermas, J. (1994). Post-metaphysical thinking: Between metaphysics and the critique of reason. Cambridge: Polity.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order. From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Höffe, O. (2001). ‘Königliche Völker.’ Zu Kant’s kosmopolitischer Rechts- und Friedenstheorie. Frankfurt a. M: Suhrkamp.
Höffe, O. (2004). Wirtschaftsbürger, Staatsbürger, Weltbürger. Politische Ethik im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. München: Beck.
Jaggar, A. M. (2002). A feminist critique of the alleged southern debt. In B. Christensen et al. (Eds.), Knowledge – power – gender. Philosophy and the future of the ‘condition féminine’ (pp. 19–40). Zürich: Chronos.
Jaggar, A. M. (2003). Gegen die weltweite Benachteiligung von Frauen. Einige Prioritäten für die westliche Philosophie. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 51, 585–609.
Kant, I. (1910–1968). Logik Blomberg. Kants Gesammelte Schriften (Vol. xxiv). Berlin: Preussische/Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Kant, I. (1952). Critique of judgement (J. C. Meredith, Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon.
Kant, I. (1963). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In W. Weischedel (Ed.), Werke in sechs Bänden (Vol. iv, pp. 7–102). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (H. P. Paton, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
Kant, I. (1983a). An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? In I. Kant (Ed.), Perpetual peace and other essays on politics, history and morals (T. Humphrey, Trans., pp. 41–60). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Kant, I. (1983b). Idea for a universal history with a cosmopolitan intent. In I. Kant (Ed.), Perpetual peace and other essays (T. Humphrey, Trans., pp. 19–39). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Kant, I. (1983c). To perpetual peace. A philosophical sketch. In I. Kant (Ed.), Perpetual peace and other essays on politics, history and morals (T. Humphrey, Trans., pp. 107–143). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Kant, I. (1991a). The metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans., pp. 214–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (1991b). Perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch. In H. Reiss (Ed.), Kant’s political writings (2nd ed., pp. 98–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (1998a). What does it mean to orient oneself in thinking? In I. Kant (Ed.), Religion within the boundaries of mere reason and other writings (A. Wood & G. di Giovanni, Trans., pp. 1–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (1998b). Religion within the boundaries of mere reason. In I. Kant (Ed.), Religion within the boundaries of mere reason and other writings (A. Wood & G. di Giovanni, Trans., pp. 31–191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kleingeld, P. (1995). Fortschritt und Vernunft: Zur Geschichtsphilosophie Kants. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
Kleingeld, P. (2004). Kant’s Argumente für den Völkerbund. In H. Nagl-Docekal & R. Langthaler (Eds.), Recht – Geschichte – Religion. Die Bedeutung Kants für die Gegenwart (pp. 99–112). Wien/München/Berlin: Oldenbourg/Akademie.
Nagl-Docekal, H. (1997). Feminist ethics: How it could benefit from Kant’s moral philosophy. In R. M. Schott (Ed.), Feminist interpretations of Immanuel Kant (pp. 101–124). University Park: The Pennsylvania University Press.
Nagl-Docekal, H. (2004a). Feminist philosophy (K. Vester, Trans.). Boulder: Westview.
Nagl-Docekal, H. (2004b). Eine rettende Übersetzung? Jürgen Habermas interpretiert Kants Religionsphilosophie. In R. Langthaler & H. Nagl-Docekal (Eds.), Glauben und Wissen. Ein Symposium mit Jürgen Habermas (pp. 93–116). Wien/München/Berlin: Oldenbourg/Akademie.
Nagl-Docekal, H. (2010). Über Selbstgesetzgebung und das Glück. Autonomie bei Kant. In E. List & H. Stelzer (Eds.), Grenzen der Autonomie (pp. 33–54). Weilerswist: Velbrück.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C., & Glover, J. (Eds.). (1995). Women, culture, and development. Oxford: Clarendon.
O’Neill, O. (1985). Constructions of reason: Explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy (Chapter “Between consenting adults”, pp. 105–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pauer-Studer, H., & Nagl-Docekal, H. (Eds.). (2003). Freiheit, Gleichheit und Autonomie. Wien/München/Berlin: Oldenbourg/Akademie.
Pogge, T. (2002). World poverty and human rights. Cambridge/Oxford/Malden: Polity.
Pogge, T. (2010). Politics as usual: What lies behind the pro-poor rhetoric. Cambridge: Polity.
Rademacher, T. (2010). Kants Antwort auf die Globalisierung. Das kantsche Weltbürgerrecht als Prinzip einer normativen politischen Theorie des weltpolitischen Systems zur Steuerung der Globalisierung. Berlin: Logos.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schlothfeldt, S. (2009). Individuelle oder gemeinsame Verpflichtung? Das Problem der Zuständigkeit bei der Behebung gravierender Übel. Paderborn: Mentis.
Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 229–243.
Tiedemann, P. (2007). Menschenwürde als Rechtsbegriff. Eine philosophische Klärung. Berlin: Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Volk, C. (2009). Demokratie in der Weltgesellschaft? Normative Grundlagen legitimer Herrschaft in einer globalen politischen Ordnung. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Wingert, L. (2002). Jürgen Habermas: Faktizität und Geltung – Der Prozess des Rechts in den Satzungen der Macht. In R. Brandt & T. Sturm (Eds.), Klassische Werke der Philosophie. Von Aristoteles bis Habermas (pp. 345–378). Leipzig: Reclam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nagl-Docekal, H. (2014). Learning to Listen or Why Morality Calls for Liberal Politics. In: Fløistad, G. (eds) Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Contemporary Philosophy: A New Survey, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6895-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6895-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6894-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6895-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)