Kant creates a definition of justice and freedom predicated on the use of reason. He states that personal freedom logically ends where another individual's freedom begins, and that in the very conception of freedom, this dividing line is inherent. From this, Kant concludes that it is not necessary to create an external set of restrictions to ensure that people do not infringe on each other's freedom as it is contained in the construct of freedom. I believe that this definition implies that there is no such thing as freedom without reason. Kant would not say, for example, that an animal or person incapable of using reason acts freely. A person must be capable of appreciating everyone else's right to freedom as they expect the same for themselves. Otherwise, one could exercise his or her freedom at the cost of another. Since Kant takes this imperative, to draw the line of your own freedom where another person's begins, as inherent to the construct of freedom, we can say that the exercise of freedom requires the use of reason.
So to act unjustly, that is, to infringe on another person's freedom is to act without reason, or with flawed reasoning. That said, it would seem that the fundamental law for people to follow is to act reasonably and to exercise and strengthen one's use of reason. If we cannot think reasonably, we are a) not truly free and b) incapable of acting justly on purpose. This makes me think immediately of the disparity in America between money spent on public education and other priorities, such as the defense budget. If our stated goals are to promote freedom and reason, on a local and international level, shouldn't educating our population, to ensure their ability to exercise reason, be the primary focus? I think a common counterargument would be that freedom includes the choice to act unreasonably, but according to Kant, one cannot fully appreciate, or respect freedom without reason, and so to act unreasonably negates one's right to freedom. Would justice then, by Kant's definition, involve censuring people who act unreasonably, does it have some rectificatory element? How do reasonable and just people interact with those who are not always motivated by reason and do not respect the freedom of others?
I would take a slightly different approach to Kant's idea of freedom ending where another's freedom begins. I think what Kant is saying is that a person is free to act in anyway so long as they do not take freedom from another. In this way if an action does result in the loss of freedom to another than the actor is not free to pursue that action. I would agree that one must be educated and rational to fully comprehend and respect their own freedom. However I would say that is not reason that defines the limits of freedom, rather I would say freedoms define their own limits in response to others freedoms. I would agree that to act beyond ones freedoms is unjust in Kant's definition and that yes there would be a rectificatory element to these breaches of freedom. Possibly in a way that those who extend their freedom are consequently hindered of freedom as well. However this method would simply force a cycle of injustice as freedoms are expanded and contracted. This dilemma is an interesting one that i am not entirely sure how to dissect, I would be very interested to hear others thoughts on this idea.
ReplyDelete