I disagree with Kant's idea that a monarch is better for the Enlightenment than a republic...[Relevant quotes redacted.] While I understand what he is saying (that a monarchy allows people to feel secure enough to question), I disagree because with a republic the people have more of a say in what happens and therefore people must think and question things more than they would if all the decisions were made for them like in a monarchy. Also in a republic you're able to publicly question and make observations, but in a monarchy you privately question, but this will not create a widespread Enlightenment (instead of just questioning yourself)...[More quotes] Monarchy can eventually lead to an enlightenment, but a republic sort of forces enlightenment to take place. A republic forces people to question, observe, make mistakes, correcting the mistakes, etc. People become more knowledgeable in a republic.
Discuss. Are there crucial features of a republic that Kant does not take into account? Cite relevant text and be kind and collegial in responding to your classmates.
Deadline:
Posts
6 comments:
I do think that Kant overlooks a few key characteristics of a republic. Obviously, a democratic government does not cause revolution or inevitable instability; the United States would be a prime example of a democracy that has succeeded without inducing revolution. However, at the time Kant was writing (only a few years before the start of the French Revolution), this kind of example did not exist, and thus, the concept of a static, stable republic was hard to grasp. Also, I think that Kant did make a number of solid points against a republic in his essay. In particular, he highlights the stability of a monarchy, and explains that the King has the ability to encourage argument and discussion because he is "not afraid of shadows... A republic could not dare say such a thing" (6). In many ways, this is a completely accurate statement. While it may be true that a republic encourages individual enlightenment and even public enlightenment, it also gives a voice to radical or corrupt individuals. In this way, leaders are sometimes brought to power who have no business of leading a nation. A monarchy may limit the pace or amount of change that takes place at any one time, but in doing so, it provides a saftey net for when ideas or people fail.
I think Taylor makes a good point regarding the particular kind of monarchy that Kant is in favor of. The authority of Kant's monarch comes from his loyalty to the "general public will" (5), which in this case means maintaining order and otherwise staying out of the way. His 'job' is only to see that "all true or alleged improvement stands together with civil order" and to "prevent one of them from violently hindering another" (5). Outside of that, "he can leave it to his subjects to do what they find necessary for their spiritual welfare" (5). Kant's monarch seems to be more of a guardian and enforcer than a tyrant. And like Taylor said, the monarch himself is also "one who is himself enlightened" and "is not afraid of shadows" (6), so that he isn't so much outside the argument but is maybe even engaged in it himself.
I can see where the first commenter is coming from - a republic would definitely seem more conducive to encouraging new ideas. But when you consider what chaos that would wreak on society - where everyone's espousing and actually living by their own ideas with no one to bind them to their civil duties - the enlightened monarchy doesn't seem so bad. I think Kant, if nothing else, is thinking realistically: "Men work themselves gradually out of barbarity" (6), not all at once. It's his job to secure "public peace and the stability of the community" (6) so that the people who will eventually contribute their great ideas to the world can focus on just that.
What I find interesting in the last two posts is an emphasis on one key term; stability. To me this begs the questions: is stability always a good thing? What, exactly, is stability? To one "public peace and the stability of the community" (6) can certainly be considered a form of oppression. Perhaps my argument is based more on praxis then Kant's; he does seem to be describing a perfect monarch, who pursues the people's rather than his own goals. Yet I would argue that the mutability of a republic is actually much more desirable to an enlightened mind than the chimera 'stability'. Kant's advocacy of public intellectualism is certainly heartening, but what happens when the stable powers that be decide that a notion they fear will undermine stability has become too influential? Look at Martin Luther as the prime example. Perhaps, once again, my argument is more praxis based, but I think the idea of 'stability' needs to be banished from this sort of argument, as true stability will inevitably attempt to destroy anything, even just ideas, that threaten its rule.
Kant's argument relies on a certain kind of monarch which was not all that common - hence the "Great" in Fredrick the Great. So I think Kant should have given more thought to capacity of "the republic" in securing certain features that he claims makes this Monarch great, even if it would have been ideal at the time, as Taylor suggests - and this seems defensible if one considers that at one time most every political theory was a tenet of idealism, with no example ever having been put in practice. I think that a monarch who holds that his subjects can "Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, only obey"(6), could be replaced with a republic that adheres to a constitution that demands the same.
Interesting points are raised here by both my classmates. As Americans, we are somewhat poisoned against the institution of the monarchy, believing it an archaic system of government, instead much favoring the ideal of a stable republic where the majority's voice is the ruling power.
Kant's enlightened monarchy shines with a certain appeal in this context, however. Whereas the majority can sometimes be weighted down with ignorance or prejudice, an enlightened monarch's goal is "uniting the general public's will in his own." In this way, laws and standards are held to a higher degree if aligned with a enlightened few, than if aligned to an ignorant many.
I agree with Craig that the idea of complete stability would destroy in attempt at reform, arguing and questioning. Because of this I disagree with Kant that a monarchy is ideal for Enlightenment. It is true that a monarchy greatly slows the pace of reform, which can be good because it prevents rash decisions and reforms that would overall harm the country. However, republics also have systems in place that serve as such a "safety net." Every idea posed is not immediately instituted, there is just a greatly likelihood that the citizens voice will be heard. I think the fact that citizens know that they have a voice in governmental policy overall increases Enlightenment thinking, because people are not just arguing for the sake of arguing, they are actually trying to make some sort of difference. This leads me to believe that Kants statement, "Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, only obey!" Should not be taken without question. It is important that individuals obey the overall laws of the country as they stand, however, they should not hesitate to advocated for change. But like many of my classmates said above, we are all biased by the fact that we live in a functioning republic, and during Kant's time there had yet to be a successful republic.
Post a Comment