Immanuel Kant – militarist, racist, proto-fascist and anti-Semite
| September 29, 2010 | Posted by Joseph Keysor under Blog |
Discussions of Kant usually focus on his main philosophical ideas – empiricism, rationalism, ethics, epistemology and whatnot. These ideas place him in the front rank of modern Western philosophers (though far below the ancients, in my opinion). If we look at Kant from a different angle, however, another picture emerges.
Concerning his militarism, people who run across such statements of Kant as the following will assume he was opposed to war, a reasonable man, the epitome of the finest tendencies of rationalism: “the barbarous expedient of war”; “reason, as the highest legislative moral power, absolutely condemns war as a test of rights and sets up peace as an immediate duty”; “war, the source of all evils and moral corruption,” and so on.[1]
It is necessary, though, to read the fine print. In so doing, we learn that war promotes “that close association of social classes within the commonwealth which promotes the well-being of all” [102]. War stimulates social cohesion which helps towards a greater degree of freedom [102]. Thus, “so long as human culture remains at its present stage, war is therefore an indispensable means of advancing it further” [102-03]. Peace will only be possible “when culture has reached its full development – and only God knows when that will be” [103].
So, war is bad, and someday we will progress beyond it, but for the present it is necessary and even beneficial. This explains Kant’s sympathy for the French revolution. True, much blood was shed in wars and massacres, but that was necessary for the progress of mankind. This idea of war as necessary and beneficial, as “natural” and part of nature’s plan was to become over the next fifty years and more one of the cornerstones of German militarism.
Kant was also a racist, and in his Physical Geography expressed his philosophical belief in the superiority of the white race. [2] Moreover, he presented a concept that was later to become an important justification of totalitarianism – the idea that there was more real democracy and representation of the will of the people in the rule of an enlightened despot like Frederick the Great, than there was under a parliamentary system like that of Great Britain, which (in Kant’s view) was only a swindle [81-82].
Thus, Kant could enthusiastically explain that “our age is the age of enlightenment, the century of Frederick” [9]. The Poles were less enthusiastic about Prussian warlords furthering the progress of humanity with their enlightened wars and conquests. By “uniting the collective will of the people in his own” [8], the monarch derives real authority. The people don’t need democracy because their ruler represents them faithfully.
Significantly, Kant thought progress would come “from the top downwards” [84]. The state and its enlightened leadership would guide the common people on mankind’s upward progressive path. This would require a comprehensive system of national education “designed on the considered plan and intention of the highest authority in the state” [84-85].
Concerning Kant’s anti-Semitism, there is a very interesting book called German Idealism and the Jew: The Inner Anti-Semitism of Philosophy and German Jewish Responses by Prof. Michael Mack. This book shows, convincingly I believe, how Kant helped to introduce a new kind of anti-Semitism into German Kultur. Kant was not concerned about the Jews being under God’s wrath for the crucifixion of Christ. He had no interest in such unreasonable ideas. He objected to Jews because their rigid adherence to unchanging divine laws alienated them from the progress of humanity, and isolated them from natural human feelings.
Kant also missed clear references in the Old Testament to the afterlife (Daniel 12:2-3; Psalm 23:6; Psalm 16:11; Isaiah 65: 17-18). Out of this misunderstanding, he reasoned that Jews were only materialists, interested in serving God just for the sake of material gain and earthly benefits (Genesis 28:20-21). These misguided ideas became standard themes of more radical anti-Semites who, later in the 19th century, added yet other ideas (including racial purity and hostility to Jewish-inspired Christianity) to portray Jews as an unhealthy and even dangerous cultural influence. The following quote from Mein Kampf reflects Kant’s enlightenment anti-Semitism (expressed of course by many others as well):
Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him . . . Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world (Vol. I Chapter 11, “Nation and Race”).[3]
Kant is an excellent example of the truth of that saying of Christ’s, “That which is highly esteemed with men is an abomination with God.” In the eyes of men, Kant was a brilliant philosopher, but from the biblical point of view his philosophy is folly, delusion, and a complete waste of time. If I were stranded on a desert island with nothing to read but the complete works of Kant, I would sit next to that pile of books wishing I had something to read.
It would take too long to elaborate on the many errors, misconceptions, and outright falsehoods that vitiate Kant’s philosophy and render it null and void. His beliefs that the highest cause was inaccessible to us [80]; that man was nothing but “a mere trifle” relative to “the omnipotence of nature” [80]; that mankind was on an upward course of moral progress and improvement [78-79]; that human reason was the highest source of knowledge and that human instinct was a reliable guide, and even a ‘voice of God” [80]; that God “will make up for our own lack of righteousness so long as our attitude is sincere” [114]; that it is “absurd” to claim “theoretical knowledge of the transcendental” [114] – these and other errors reveal a system of thought totally opposed to biblical Christianity.
Kant’s “categorical imperative,” his attempt to provide a foundation for human ethics on human reason alone, was a complete failure. For example, someone could reason: “Jews are a menace to mankind. If everyone did as I am doing and killed Jews, the world would be a better place. Therefore, killing Jews is ethical.”
Kant’s pontifications on human knowledge and perception lacked a solid foundation. If we are nothing but matter and our knowledge and perceptions are thus nothing more than chemistry and biology, or if we have immortal souls created by God and can perceive and reason as we do because we are made in the image of God, in either case Kant’s epistemological guesswork was very wide of the mark, superfluous, and irrelevant.
Someone who spent one year diligently studying Kant in the pursuit of wisdom would at the end of that year be farther from his goal than he was when he started. At best, a brief examination of Kant can be useful in understanding the many evils of modern thought – especially in Germany, which was deeply infected by Kant’s poisonous and foolish ideas.[4]
[1] Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (London 2009), pp. 111, 26, and 76 respectively. Future quotes will not be footnoted but will give the page number in the body of text.
[2] For a quote as well as more information see “Kant and racism,” Philosophical Misadventures: The Thin Ice of Reason; http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=20
[3] http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html; accessed Sept. 2010. Collections of sayings about the Jews were published so anti-Semites could get ideas from various thinkers without having to bother with a lot of tedious and extraneous philosophical ideas.
[4] A useful analysis of some problems with Kant’s thought as well as of his relevance to current philosophical trends is found in Stephen R.C. Hicks’ Explaining Postmodernism: Scepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Phoenix AZ, 2004).
This is the default footer layout. You can easily add or remove columns in the footer.
It seems that you have a misunderstanding of Kant’s categorical imperative; Kant’s tool of ethics is founded upon “universifiable” concepts which do not violate the laws of reason and the notion that humans cannot be used as a means to an end because they are rational. Your short paragraph on Kant’s categorical imperative seems incomplete and flawed for the above reasons. Kant would disagree with your statement of utilitarianism regarding the genocide of the Jewish people; utilitarianism is the idea of maximizing happiness in the name of the greater good. Kant sought to establish a bases of morality which was independent from religion; therefore, his philosophy is outside faith and well within reason. He also sought to establish a moral foundation which would respect human rationality.
Since you only questioned my understanding of Kant’s categorical imperative, I wonder if you saw some validity in the other criticisms.
Your point is a serious one and is not easy to answer briefly. I am sure you are right, and Kant himself would have disagreed with the statement regarding the utilitarianism of killing all Jews. But, I believe trying to base ethics on reason alone is inherently flawed and is in the end certain to fail. It is vulnerable to the sorts of abuse of which I gave an example.
Kantian logic (or any merely philosophical system) is not compelling to vast numbers of common people who need something more than philosophical speculations as a moral guide. “The laws of reason” are vague, nebulous, and easily manipulated to fulfill desires deeper than reason. This does not mean a religiously based ethic cannot also be abused, but it has much more weight and is vastly more compelling. Witness the countless millions of Christians who make a serious effort to live by God’s laws and the teachings of Christ because they are from God, compared to the tiny number of people who try to base their lives on Kant’s philosophy.
Kant’s “laws of reason” were peculiar to himself and to a small number of like-minded people, and while Kant would have objected to later abuses, someone who truly believed the Jews were a menace to humanity could use their understanding of “reason” and “logic” to justify things Kant himself never dreamed of. To put it another way, people will accept Kant’s emphasis on rationality, but then use a different sort of “rationality” than Kant had in mind.
For example, your statement ” humans cannot be used as a means to an end because they are rational.” This is Kant’s opinion, not a divine law from God. What if someone accepts that part of Kant’s philosophy that they like (“we must be guided by reason alone, not religious rules”) but then add “Jews are not really rational humans anyway so this does not apply to them?” Reason is deceptive and tricky, and reason is often subordinate to will and to deeper hidden emotions, and so it is inherently insufficient for an ethical basis.
That we will be called before God on the day of judgment and held accountable for all of our actions, even our thoughts and words, is a much deeper and higher standard than 18th-century concepts of rationality which had and have a very limited application.
About your comments ” his philosophy is outside faith and well within reason. He also sought to establish a moral foundation which would respect human rationality.” If his concept of God was correct, then he was right to try and form an ethical system as he did. But if his concept of God was wrong, then his whole approach to ethics, and to life itself, is profoundly flawed.
If God does exist and if he does communicate his laws to us through various means, then attempts to ignore that are inherently irrational, in that they are alienated from the source of our being and based on a false conception of who and what we are as human beings.
That we are beings created by God is the truest and best source of respect for human rationality. Kant was mistaken in thinking that his ideas of rationality were rationality itself.
I think attempts to found ethics on reason and logic alone (and later on science) were one of the main reasons for the decline and ultimate fall of German society into complete barbarism.
As long as this response is, I fear it is still inadequate to a complex subject which my book explores in more depth than my blog post.
First, I would like to address that the laws of reason not peculiar to Kant; they are inherent in all human beings. As an example, can you think a contradiction? Imagine a round square(not a square-like object with rounded edges), a married bachelor, or a satanic christian; each of these examples are contradictions and violate the laws of reason and thus, you cannot imagine them. If what is common in all human beings is the capacity for rationality, then it is a contradiction to abuse one’s rationality and is therefore fundamentally wrong to use someone as an instrument. An example would be stealing; hence, if everyone were stealing everyone’s property all the time, this would be a contradiction as stealing and property mutually define each other; therefore, stealing is wrong because it is contradictory in a universal sense.
Secondly, if you what stated is true, that religious morality is far more compelling and just as risky in terms of abuse as Kantian logic, then that would make religious based morality far more dangerous and destructive as it would be more pernicious and more easily abused by those in power. Kant’s intentions were do away with the notions of mingling belief and ethics; belief has no place in ethics because it leaves the door open for people to be used as an instrument. Kant’s theory is unappealing to most because of it’s abstract nature and it’s lack of providing a gauge for moral worth. Conversely, just because more individuals have a religious based ethical understanding does not make it right.
If one were to make an argument for the genocide of Jewish individuals then they would not be using Kantian logic; even if they claim to be, one cannot simply revoke someone’s rationality. All humans have the capacity of rationality, therefore, all humans have the same moral value in so far as they are all rational. To Kant, humans cannot be used.
A valid criticism of Kant’s moral theory would be that his categorical imperative only defines actions as morally permissible or morally wrong rather than assigning a degree of moral worth; that is that there is no moral distinction between deciding to wear pink socks today and deciding to drink a cup of coffee tomorrow, both are morally permissible according to the categorical imperative but neither are more morally valuable than the other.
For all your statements in support of basing morality on faith instead of reason, you must first prove the existence of God and then provide valid reasons that one should follow the commands of God in order to be morally right. To me, it is more dangerous to base one’s ethics on faith and belief rather than reason as one can simply revert to descriptive claims of faith to justify their actions like, “it’s God’s will”, or, “that’s what this scripture states.” What valid reason is there for basing morality in something which cannot be proven?
I agree with some of your statements in your evaluation of Kant, but I do not follow your reasoning regarding your criticism of his theory. It is still unclear to me whether Kant was anti-Semetic or whether he was simply criticizing the base of their morality.
I agree that there are basic laws of reason not peculiar to Kant, but many aspects of Kant’s philosophy were peculiar to him. “Kant’s reason” does not necessarily always equal “reason.”
I also agree that a capacity for reason is common to all humans, but so is a capacity for anger, selfishness, ignorance, conceit, fear, and other factors that hinder the use of reason. Some have even argued that reason is secondary, governed by deeper personal motives (I’m thinking of Pascal or Schopenhauer, not Freud).
Is it a contradiction to abuse rationality? People abuse rationality all of the time. It certainly isn’t an inconceivable contradiction like a married bachelor. Will and desire can easily overpower or work around reason. As you say, if everyone were stealing everyone’s property all of the time, that would be a problem – but if I know perfectly well that everyone does not steal all of the time, and if I steal something life will continue to go very much as usual, why not? If everyone did it – but everyone won’t do it, and my desire for easy money will easily overcome philosophical abstractions if I don’t have a higher and more enduring standard.
This leads to your second point about my contention that religious morality is more compelling. Millions of Christian people all over the world will say “I shouldn’t steal because it is against God’s law.” Few will refrain from stealing because of Kantian philosophy, and only then if the temptation is not too great. True, religious based morality can be more dangerous and destructive in theory, but the solution is not to separate belief from ethics. In fact, I believe such a separation is impossible. Even Kant’s ethics were derived from his understanding of God and what we can or cannot know about him. If he had believed that God does communicate with us and we can know his will (even if only in general terms, such as “Thou shalt not steal”), his whole approach to philosophy and to ethics would have been different.
This is one reason Kant’s philosophy is unappealing – not just because it is abstract, but because it is just too hard for many people to figure out. Is higher truth only accessible to brilliant philosophers and to those smart enough to understand them, or can real truth be grasped by common people as well? That Kant failed to provide a gauge for moral worth is not surprising, as his philosophical base is (in my view) inadequate.
You are right, a religiously based ethic is not right just because more people have it, but it confirms the truth of Pascal’s observation that philosophical abstractions are too remote and difficult to have a lasting impact. They do not touch the heart, as religion does. I find Pascal vastly more compelling and also more humane than Kant.
About using Kant’s logic for genocide, if someone sincerely believed that the Jews were the mortal enemies of the Jewish people, and exterminating them would aid Germany in its struggle for survival, is there anything inherent in the categorical imperative to restrain them? I don’t see it. All humans have the capacity for rationality – but that doesn’t apply to sub-humans, or inferior humans, like Slavs, Gypsies, Negroes, or Asians. Kant’s ethics can be too easily bent to any desired shape. Even if that is an abuse of Kantian logic, I believe Kantian logic lends itself to such abuse and has no safeguards against it. Similar abuses by Christians are more easily recognizable as direct denials of what Christ taught.
Part of my criticism of Kant’s moral theory is that it is too weak, and does not reflect a real understanding of human nature. It was cooked up in a philosopher’s study but will not go very far in the real world. Countless people have suffered or even died rather than deny essential Christian values – who is going to die for Kant’s philosophy? But there is no need to die or suffer for it, it can be too easily evaded (of course Christians too can compromise their faith out of weakness or fear).
Here is an interesting link to Adolf Eichmann and his attempt to live by the Kantian imperative. He states that he tried to live his life by the Kantian imperative, but had to lay it aside under compulsion. Yes, I know Christians have done the same thing, betrayed their ideals when their life is on the line, anyone can, but this is still a very interesting conversation. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-105-04.html
Not assigning a degree of moral worth may be a valid criticism of his theory, but even if he had done something along those lines people would still assign their own values as they saw fit, agreeing with Kant or not as they felt like it. With Jesus Christ it is vastly different (for those who believe in him and in his teachings as we have them in the 4 gospels). Christ’s words carry much greater weight, and are not merely the human opinions of another human like myself.
About first proving the existence of God, a common point, it is significant that Christ, the apostles, and some very successful evangelists in the 18th and 19th centuries (I want to leave contemporary evangelism out of this) did not try to first prove the existence of God. They stated basic teachings about God, his character and what he expected of us according to the bible, and people believed or not as they were individually led. There is a place for trying to demonstrate the existence of God, and I have read some arguments and attempted proofs with interest, but I did not come to believe in God as a result of such arguments and neither have many other people (though some are moved by them). Once again, I think reason and logic are important, but secondary.
Can you prove that Kant’s understanding of God was valid? What if Kant had a mistaken conception of God which led him to underestimate the capacity of human reason and its ability to find truth far beyond Kant’s own understanding? Did he think his mind represented the uttermost limit past which no one could go? Because he did not have certain knowledge of God no one else could either?
To me, it is safer to base one’s ethics on the teachings of Christ as we have them in the bible than to base ethics on reason alone. Reason is too easily deceived, too clouded by emotions. Religious reason can also go wrong, but with Christ as a focal point it is easier to keep on a straight path.
True, people can state “That’s what the bible says” or “That’s God’s will,” we cannot have infallibility in this life. No matter what sort of system anyone devises, people will abuse it. Also, look at all of the vastly different conclusions come to by people who have relied on reason alone. Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Russell, Ayers – they all relied on reason alone and look in how many different directions it took them. So maybe reason is not a reliable guide after all.
Lastly, about Kant’s anti-Semitism, he introduced new themes of anti-Semitism based not on religion (“The Jews killed Christ!”) but on rationalism and on objections to Judaism as he saw it in Torah itself. When the Nazis claimed the Jews were nothing but materialists and were incapable of higher ideals they were echoing Kant. As historian Paul Lawrence Rose wrote, “Kant’s basic ideas were elaborated into a historical and philosophical critique of Judaism that until very recently commanded virtually unquestioning support in German culture” [Wagner: Race and Revolution (New Haven 1992), p. 7]. Of course, the Nazis added other concepts unknown to Kant and went to extremes he never could have imagined, I am not blaming the Nazis on Kant, but he did introduce a new way of looking at Jews which formed a part of the Nazi concept of Jews as less than human. Incidentally, anti-Semitic comments by famous philosophers were compiled and put into book form for popular distribution, so people could read about Kant’s view of Jews as cowards, liars, and selfish materialists incapable of higher ideals, fundamentally estranged from real life, without having to read about “a priori synthetic judgments” or other difficult terminology.
I thought Stephen R.C. Hicks’ book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault had a very interesting critique of Kant’s epistemology. Also, a brief but (in my opinion) effective overview of Kant from a Christian point of view can be found in Colin Brown’s Philosophy and the Christian Faith. If Kant was wrong about God, then his entire edifice is built on the wrong foundation.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): The Jews are by nature “sharp dealers” who are “bound together by superstition.” Their “immoral and vile” behavior in commerce shows that they “do not aspire to civic virtue,” for “the spirit of usury holds sway amongst them.” They are “a nation of swindlers” who benefit only “from deceiving their host’s culture.” (Stephen Hicks, PhD)
I read Stephen Hicks’Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault several times and thought it was very profound. He demonstrates convincingly I think severe problems not merely with Kant’s epistemology, but also with Kant’s attempt to apply his philosophical wisdom to the real world – an attempt that ended in complete and consistent failure (my words, not Hicks’, who is considerably more professional in his critique than that – but this is a blog and not a scholarly book).
Kant said the Jews were only materialists who did not have any concept of an afterlife and were concerned only with material goods – a stupid and false criticism that later became a main theme of German antisemites including of course the Nazis.
As a philosopher, Kant’s influence was great – too bad his influence was negative. My personal opinion is that Kant was a conceited fool.
An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance.[6]
I agree that ad hominem arguments are irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of a given point – however, they may be mere expressions of opinion, not intended to be arguments or refutations.
For example, if A says “According to Kant, Judaism has no concept of an afterlife and hence is not really a religion at all,” and B responds by saying “Hitler said the same thing in Mein Kampf” (see vol. I chapt. 11 “Nation and Race”) that has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Kant’s assertion. A proper refutation would require references to such biblical passages as Daniel 12:2-3, Psalm 23:6, or Isaiah 65: 17-18 (KJV) to demonstrate that Kant slandered an entire group of people without even understanding what they believed. This is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, which says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” – that is, against even one person, let alone against many.
To put it another way, if someone says “Kant was too sheltered from real life and was in fact nothing but a gigantic bookworm whose influence on philosophy has been all bad,” that has nothing to do with the validity of Kant’s statement “there is not a single metaphysical which has not been solved, or for the solution of which a key at least has not been supplied” (Preface to the First Edition of Critique of Pure Reason, quoted in Colin Brown’s Philosophy and the Christian Faith). Nevertheless, while inadequate as a refutation, it may still have some truth in it, and was never intended to be a refutation of any specific argument.
If you are interested in a more reasoned critique of the false principles and negative consequences of Kant’s epistemology – which I never attempted in a blog – I recommend Stephen R. C. Hicks’ book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Scholargy Publishing 2004). Hicks quotes Moses Mendelssohn as calling Kant “the all-destroyer.” And then, Nietzsche described Kant as – but who cares about that fascist kook Nietzsche?
Also interesting are Michael Mack’s German Idealism and the Jew: The Inner Anti-Semitism of Philosophy and German Jewish Responses, as well as Paul Lawrence Rose’s German Question / Jewish Question: Revolutionary Antisemitism from Kant to Wagner.