The Idea of Freedom and Liberty in Rousseau and Kant - Essay Example

Insert It is true that the world has bequeathed human civilization with philosophers and that these philosophers have extensively helped refine and order human civilization. Philosophy, ethics, law, linguistics, mathematics, aesthetics and art, theology, pure and applied sciences, political science and all forms of cognitive sciences are some of the facets of human civilization that philosophy has extensively shaped, modeled and informed. Among the most reputable philosophers who have graced the world are Immanuel Kant (April 22, 1724- February 12, 1804) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (June 28 1712- July 2, 1778). The former was an eighteenth century Genevan philosopher, composer and writer. The extent of Rousseau’s political philosophy is underscored by it being attributed to French Revolution and the developments that have accompanied modern sociological, political and educational thought. On the other hand, Kant, a Prussian philosopher, is considered as the central figure in modern philosophy. Rousseuan and Kantian philosophy are comparable since both touch on similar or relatable subjects. For instance, both Rousseau and Kant have made comprehensive treatises on the idea of freedom and liberty. In relation to the foregoing, there will be need to examine Rousseau’s idea of freedom, in light of his statement that man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. This, together with the manner in which Rousseau interprets freedom is to be contrasted to Kant’s point of view of freedom, in light of Kant’s postulation that freedom is only an idea of reason. To further the argument and bring clarity to Kant’s and Rousseau’s arguments, standpoints taken by Hume, Hegel, Locke and Rene Descartes may be considered. This discourse may also discuss the manner in which Kant and Rousseau’s ideas on liberty have informed a nation’s fundamental beliefs and ideas vis-à-vis the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. In the first chapter, Jean-Jacques Rousseau takes the standpoint that man is born free but he is everywhere in chains. In this light, Rousseau speaks of the repression that modern states visit on people’s physical freedom and does very little [if at all] to protect or consolidate the civil freedom which compel people to enter into civil society, yet this physical freedom is every man’s birthright. In this light, Rousseau takes the stance that legitimate political authority is only contrived when social contract is entered by all citizens, for the benefit of their own self or mutual preservation. It is at this point that the chains on the man who is born free are broken (Rousseau, 45). It is against the backdrop of the above that Rousseau deems and calls the collective assemblage of all these citizens who have come together to enter a social contract, sovereign. Rousseau divulges that this sovereign should in many ways considered as an individual. Herein, Rousseau refers to the comparable aspects between the sovereign and the individual. In this light, Rousseau states that while every individual possesses a particular will which is geared towards his own best interest, the sovereign also possesses and expresses the general will which aims at the attainment of the common good. Likewise, the sovereign wields authority over matters of public concern where its authority is also absolute. Rousseau sees the exaction of capital punishment as the right expression of this absolute authority of the sovereign (Rousseau, 52, 53). The sovereign also expresses its general will by creating and enforcing the general and abstract laws that govern the state. These laws are created at the nascent stage of the state’s life by a non-citizen lawgiver who should thus be impartial. All the laws that have been formed by the sovereign must uphold liberty and equality. Beyond this point, the laws may vary, because the local circumstances of sovereigns may not be uniform. According to Rousseau, while the sovereign through the law may wield legislative powers, states may also experience the need for a government, to help the executive to exact state-relevant day-to-day activities. Rousseau continues that aristocracies appear to be the most stable while the monarchy is the most suitable form of government for large demography and hot climate and are the strongest form of governments (Rousseau, 54-56. To Rousseau, there is a distinct line which separates the sovereign from the government, and this distinction will always cause friction. The distinction eventually eradicates the state, but the time taken for this destruction depends on the internal strength of the state. Internally weak states are withered quickly by the heat from this friction (Rousseau, 56-59). The people who have formed the sovereign are to meet regularly in periodic assemblies. When citizens elect their representatives and/ or try to buy their duties out of the public service, the general will is muzzled and fettered and the will of the state also becomes endangered. In a closely related wavelength, the people of the sovereign should not vote in line with their personal preferences but for the general will. The healthier the state, the more likely it is that the results of the votes will approach unanimity. Rousseau cites the Roman republic and its comitia to exemplify the ability of large states to assemble their citizens (Rousseau, 59). When Kant states that freedom is only an idea of reason, he means that morality is applicable to all rational beings, so that a moral action is one that is informed by reason, in lieu of sensual or base impulses. An action is moral if it is informed by reason, and not by consequences. Particularly, one can ascertain the morality of an action by testing it against a universal applicable maxim. According to Kant, reason is the same all the time and for all people. Because of this, morality too should be universal. Against this backdrop, an action is morally upright if it embodies a maxim that people will to act as a universal law. This principle is what Kant refers to as categorical imperative (Sandel, 1). Kant contrasts categorical imperative with hypothetical imperative. Categorical imperative demands that people act [morally] to achieve a certain end. Morality acts according to categorical imperative since people must act in a manner commensurate to the moral or ethical probity of the act, meaning that the ‘ifs’ and end results are not factored. Upon realizing the universality of the moral law, people must also recognize its applicability to all. In this light, acting morally requires the recognition of other people as moral agents and as an end in themselves- not a means to an end. Kant also continues that an individual’s actions must not deter others from adhering to the moral law. The culmination of the obedience to the Kantian moral law is the realization of a utopia known as a kingdom of ends. This is an ideal society wherein people are simultaneously authors and subjects of the laws they are supposed to adhere to (Sandel, 1). Again, according to Kant, morality should be based on the concept of freedom and autonomy. This is because, people with free and autonomous will simply act and are able to decide and reflect on their act. The act of deliberation helps distinguish an autonomous will from a heteronomous one. Thus, when deliberating, people act according to a self-dictated law and not according to the dictates of impulses or passion. The foregoing clearly shows that there are points of similarity and points of departure between Kant and Rousseau’s thoughts on morality. In both treatises, freedom and morality are the basis of the formation of a society. In Rousseau’s case, the need for the formation of the sovereign is the need for self-preservation. However, when Rousseau states that man is born free but he is everywhere in chains, he speaks against the repressions of regimes which overlook civil rights as being sacrosanct, yet it is the sacrosanct nature of civil rights which form the basis of the sovereign. This resonates well with Kant’s standpoint to the effect that morality should be premised upon the concept of freedom and morality. Again, there is common ground in Kant stating that morality should be universal and Kant’s principle of categorical imperative [that an action is morally upright if it embodies a maxim that people will to act as a universal law] at one end, and Rousseau’s standpoint that laws created by the sovereign must uphold liberty and equality, at the other end. The aspect of similarity is underscored by the fact that in Kant’s and Rousseau’s standpoint, the dictates are far reaching and encompass societal absolutes. Particularly, to Rousseau, the sovereign wields authority over matters of public concern where its authority is also absolute. Likewise, in the Kantian perspective of morality, an individual can establish the morality of an action by testing it against a universal applicable maxim. Again, in both cases, the aspect of rightness or morality surpasses individual please. In Rousseau’s treatise, the people who make up the sovereign are to vote for laws which espouse the general will, instead of personal preferences. In a similar wavelength, Kant is of the persuasion that morality is applicable to all rational beings and that a moral action is one that is inspired by reason, and not sensual or base impulses. There are points of departure between Rousseau and Kant’s theory. Rousseau’s treatise has its focal point on freedom and its relation to the formation of the sovereign. To Kant, the focal point is on the freedom to reason, so as to make a moral decision and action. There is a lot of space for individual moral action, while Rousseau places emphases on the concept of freedom [as a moral issue] as it relates to the sovereign. It is given that Kant and Rousseau’s ideas have great bearing on the nation’s fundamental beliefs. By saying that the sovereign through the law may wield legislative powers and that states may also experience the need for a government to accord the executive with power to exact state-relevant day-to-day activities, Rousseau underscored the need to constitutionally define the roles of the executive and the legislature as two distinct and independent arms of the government. Rousseau also sets the stage for the consideration of the nature of governments or states that may be in place. This is because, by stating that man is born free but he is everywhere in chains, Rousseau’s main intent is to address the repression that modern states bring on people’s physical freedom. The importance of Rousseau’s concerns is the legal determination of the relation between the sovereign and the individual. Particularly, the Fourth Amendment draws the line between the rights, freedom and privacy due to an individual and the powers and limitations of the powers of the police as an instrument of the sovereign. In a closely related wavelength, it is important to appreciate the fact that the central concept of Rousseau’s treatise is liberty and social contract. The masses voluntarily cede away their liberty to form a social contract with the state. Rousseau’s contract is one in which the masses agree to be ruled so that their rights, happiness and property [self-preservation] can be protected by their rulers. In the event that the rulers of the sovereign fail to preserve the rights, happiness and property of the people, the social contract is deemed broken and the people are therefore free to choose other rulers. This idea became the chief driving force in the Declaration of Independence which is a legal document that also outlines the state-public contract. By stating that every human being was born free, Rousseau endorsed democracy. In the democracy that Rousseau espouses, every citizen had equal responsibilities to consent with and observe the laws that govern them. To this end, Rousseau played an indispensible role in promoting the concept of human rights which is the basis of the UNHCR. Rousseau’s treatise was therefore a radical shift from the political philosophy of Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes. This is because, Hobbes and Grotius had conceived human rights in light of legal constructs within a given society and/ or possession of power. On the contrary, Rousseau insisted on fundamental freedom of human persons in their natural state. This standpoint led to the acceptance of the notion that all people have certain unalienable rights, as is reflected in the Declaration of American Independence and 20th century documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter. It is also true that when Rousseau says that man is born free but he is everywhere in chains, he was convinced that are socially equal. He also sought to advance the notion of equality of men. To this end, Rousseau argued that inequalities were artificial creations of social systems that are based on labor organization and private property. To Rousseau, it is this system that facilitates the exploitation of human beings by their fellow human beings. Rousseau’s thoughts above played a pivotal role in shaping the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence which rendered all men as being created equal, having been endowed with certain rights that are unalienable. Similarly, Kant’s universal applicable maxim makes room for legislation of right and wrong. Particularly, Kant’s a universal applicable maxim makes it possible for the legal prescription of theft, murder, rape, incest and public indecency since reason is the same all the time and for all people. Conversely, it is impossible to make legislation and to enforce law in the presence of cultural or behavioral relativism. It is the same concept of universal applicable maxim that makes fundamental concepts such as all men being equal before the law to hold. Again, Kant’s standpoint that morality should be based on the concept of freedom and autonomy paves way for the recognition and balancing between individual freedom and civil obligation. Kant’s standpoint that people with free and autonomous will simply act and are able to decide and reflect on their act also makes the observation of the criminal law and justice. This is because, Kant is categorical that the free and autonomous will simply act, decide and reflect on their act. This factors a mental saneness which fundamentally determines autonomy, compos mentis [or even non compos mentis] and mens rea. It is also important to acknowledge the fact that Kant’s call for intrinsic worth of persons goes hand-in-glove with the intrinsic right to life. The same applies that persons are autonomous, entitled to freedom, the intrinsic right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This has led to the acknowledging of the fact that every person has a right to self-direction and self-determination. As a being that has intrinsic worth, a person possesses the right to actualize self-satisfaction without undue frustration. This reality is not only the basis of the Declaration of Independence which renders all men as equal and having rights that are unalienable, but also the focal point of the rights envisioned in the Declaration of Independence- the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The same concept of intrinsic worth of persons serves not only as the starting point of acknowledging the intrinsic right to life, but also makes way for happiness. It is from this happiness that the person derives worth. Works Cited Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract or the Principles of Political Right. Aenid, XI. Print Sandel, Michael. “Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785).” Harvard University’s Justice. Retrieved on March 11, 2014; from: http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/immanuel-kant-groundwork-for-the-metaphysics-of-morals-1785/ Electronic Read More