As a prominent philosopher of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant thoughtfully reflected on the nature of policy and reason in his political writings. In particular, in his work, he wrote, “The god of morality does not yield to Jupiter, the custodian of violence, for even Jupiter is still subject to fate” (Kant 116). From a personal perspective, this passage may be interpreted in the following way: morality and morally right actions are superior to violent and immoral activities, and people should be guided by moral principles and duty, even if their outcomes cannot be predicted. According to Kant, “reason is not sufficiently enlightened to discover the whole series of predetermining causes” that may determine the consequences of human activities (116). At the same time, people should “remain in the paths of duty, as the rules of wisdom require” (Kant 116). In other words, morality should be regarded as the most preferable option for goal achievement even if nature’s mechanisms may be unpredictable and presuppose alternative decisions.
In general, the difference between duty and nature is reflected in Kant’s philosophy. According to it, there is the world of phenomena, or appearances, and the world of noumena, or intelligence (Doğan 71). In the world of appearances, people’s instincts dominate, while the world of intelligence refers to the superiority of reason. Kant stated that the nature of human beings was dual, and individuals were driven by both sensual desires and rationality (67). At the same time, people’s dignity arises from duty, reason, intelligence, and morality. Assuming that reason should guide people’s actions, Kant nevertheless considered the duality of human nature (Doğan 71). In this case, the empirical world cannot be ignored, and the decision may be made in accordance with the most probable outcomes rather than duty.
In relation to politics, morality and ruling should be inseparable. Kant stated that, as “a collection of absolutely binding laws,” morality should govern people’s actions in all spheres, including politics (116). The philosopher defined morality and politics as right’s theoretical and applied branches, respectively, that should be naturally connected as politicians should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Kant 116). In this case, there will be no disagreement between morality and politics within the commandment. This unity may be regarded as the basis for perpetual peace. For its establishment, people should be governed by rationality, morality, and duty, having the collective desire to establish the governmental structure on the principles of freedom, equality, and independence with laws based on rational justifiability.
At the same time, the duality of human nature traditionally leads to unpredictable outcomes and limits the possibility of perpetual peace. First of all, not all people are able to think rationally, and not all of them are guided by duty rather than desires that aim to bring happiness. Moreover, even universal moral virtues, such as honesty, may cause devastating results in dependence on the empirical world’s conditions. That is why, even if perpetual peace is possible, it requires the long process of conflicts and wars and the change of generations, during which the principles of morality will be followed by the majority of individuals.
Works Cited
Doğan, Nejat. “Machiavellism, Kantian Deontology, and the Melian Dialogue: A Reflection on Morality and the Use of Force.” Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 44, no. 1, 2004, pp. 65-75.
Kant, Immanuel. Political Writings. Edited by Hans Reiss. Translated by H.B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.