A conversation with Otfried Höffe about Kant’s democratic legacy and the current challenges facing society.
On the occasion of the 300th anniversary of Immanuel Kant’s birth and as part of our democracy campaign “Quo vadis, democracy?”, it is essential to explore the philosophical foundations of our modern society. As one of the most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment, Kant leaves behind a legacy that extends far beyond his time. His ideas on ethics, metaphysics and politics not only characterise philosophy, but also have relevant implications for today’s democracy. In this interview, Prof. Dr Dr h.c. mult. Otfried Höffe talks about Kant’s democratic legacy and its significance for current social challenges.
Let’s start with a general question: What significance does philosophy have for our democracy today and how can it contribute to its preservation?
“As a theory of law and the state, philosophy reflects on the nature of the political community and its necessity and considers which form of government is reasonable, i.e. legitimate from a legal and moral point of view. In doing so, it emphasises as the only legitimate form of state that statehood in which all power emanates from the people concerned and is exercised for them and by them. It calls for the division of public powers and – as a theory of political justice and the principle of freedom – above all for them to be bound to inviolable human dignity and to fundamental and human rights that are qualified as “innate” and therefore inalienable.
Political philosophy opposes utilitarianism, which allows the fundamental rights of individuals to be restricted in favour of the common good. It favours a civil society as a meaningful intermediate instance between the public sphere, defined in particular by the state powers, and the “private” sphere, such as the economy and society. It clarifies the strict conditions under which civic (civil) disobedience can be legitimate and rejects both: it vehemently rejects abandoning or even merely weakening the principle of democracy in the name of environmental and climate protection. It also rejects an institution that might be permitted in times when the rule of law is lacking, but is forbidden in a constitutional democracy: church asylum.
Political philosophy specifies conditions under which transnational entities such as the European Union can be legitimate. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are indispensable here.
Last but not least, it argues in favour of a global legal community and an ever richer and denser international law for its purpose. Finally, it deals with current phenomena that endanger democracies, such as internationally organised crime, terrorism, enormous migratory movements and the need to cooperate with non-democracies.”
And now we come to this year’s honouree: was Kant a true democrat?
“Kant was a deeply democratic personality. This begins with his life path: the fact that it was not the children of the educated middle and upper classes who became one of the greatest thinkers of mankind, as is all too often the case, but the son of a craftsman. His thinking is even more clearly democratic. He rejected all privileges for specialised philosophers and scholars as well as discrimination against the reason of every human being. He rejected the view that the merits of an ancestor could be inherited, thus rejecting any hereditary aristocracy, as well as a state-imposed belief in the church. His moral philosophy is not based on special insights, but on the general moral consciousness of every human being. According to Kant, enlightenment does not require any special knowledge or skills, but merely an ability and willingness that is open to everyone: the courage to use one’s own intellect.”
How would Kant assess today’s divisive tendencies in society (populism, right-wing extremism, left-wing extremism, etc.) and how would he counter them constructively?
“Allow me to begin with reservations about the question: We should not downgrade Kant, one of the West’s greatest thinkers, to a counsellor for enquiries from the zeitgeist. Rather, we should seek out the provocative potential of his thought and then take it seriously. Kant is a philosopher, as such he poses questions of general human relevance and seeks generally convincing answers with the help of concepts and arguments that transcend cultures and epochs.
However, if we ask him about divisive tendencies in society, he will – in accordance with his cosmopolitan curiosity and the concept of judicial criticism – demand a more comprehensive diagnosis. Since society is not yet completely divided, the first thing to do is to investigate the counter-tendencies: What factors are holding society together after all? And secondly, how can these be strengthened?
He will then ask for precise terms: What exactly is meant by populism, apart from the fact that it refers to unpopular views and groups? In the case of right-wing and left-wing extremism, he will ask what exactly is worth criticising, is it really the extreme position or rather not the willingness to use violence and the lack of tolerance?
A constructive answer in the spirit of Kant: Educate people, demand the courage to think for themselves, spread out the facts on controversial topics, take worries and fears seriously, present alternative diagnoses and therapy proposals and evaluate them in the name of undisputed legal and fairness standards. And don’t lose faith in the still fairly reliable constitutional democracy.”
Imperialist endeavours and authoritarian forms of exercising power are currently celebrating a major comeback. The world peace order envisioned by Kant seems to be receding further and further into the distance. Do you still have hope that we can achieve “eternal peace” again with Kant or beyond him, i.e. with other philosophical means? Or will we once again have to resign ourselves to an equilibrium or vacuum of terror that arises when several hostile power blocs coexist (more badly than well)?
“The unconditional and therefore eternal peace overcomes violence as a means of international conflict. From the point of view of legal morality or the corresponding pure practical reason, there is no alternative to this: as Kant explains in his Peace Treatise, violence is prohibited without exception as a legal process and unconditional peace is just as unreservedly imperative. However, Kant not only declared the corresponding global community of law, incidentally not a homogeneous world state, but only a federal and subsidiary world order / world republic, to be necessary. He was open-minded enough to realise that many powers – today not only great powers! – are not prepared to relinquish the necessary sovereignty. For this situation, he recommended a second-best solution, the League of Nations, which more and more peace-loving states would gradually join. With regard to the other states, there need not only be relations of terror, not even today. Fortunately, even today there is quite peaceful co-operation in many areas such as business, science, culture and sport. Even increasingly dense international law is not completely ineffective. Incidentally, there are no philosophical means to peace, unless you want to call the Enlightenment a small means. Philosophy only makes suggestions, but at least it makes suggestions. And neither it nor the intelligent citizen gives up hope of unconditional peace. We ourselves have been able to enjoy it for three generations and still live outside all war zones.”
As we all know, peace cannot be conceived and realised without freedom and freedom cannot be conceived and realised without peace. What advice would Kant give us today, who are in the midst of multiple crises, for a future life in peace and freedom?
“Freedom, no one will deny, has a constitutive meaning for human beings in general and for the modern age in particular. Nevertheless, the first sentence in this question does not make sense without an explanation: What freedom is needed for unconditional peace? And why should we not be able to act morally freely even in peaceless times? – I maintain that Kant should not be read as a guide to contemporary problems, but I do not want to evade an answer: For a reliably peaceful life, one should rely on enlightenment, as everywhere else, and with it on an open view of the multifaceted world, which is shaken by a number of crises, but not crisis-ridden everywhere, and on a versatile public sphere that is free of any kind of censorship and does not repress even the most hopeful phenomena. In addition, one relies on the law: in the individual state on the democratic constitutional state, which has no alternative here, and also on a committed civil society. And between states, we are in favour of an increasingly comprehensive and dense international law. Political, scientific, cultural and sporting co-operation is being expanded. Last but not least, the approaches of international jurisdiction are being strengthened, the possibilities of sanctions, including the effective outlawing of terrorism and violations of international law, are being strengthened and the endeavours of international politics are not being shied away from: the patient drilling of the proverbial thick planks.”
