Question: In his essay “Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Purpose” Kant argues that the
greatest problem for the human species is “that of attaining a civil society which can administer justice universally.” Discuss how Kant argues for this claim and what his proposal is for achieving it historically You may supplement your answer by briefly outlining one contemporary version of Kant’s proposal.. Do you think Kant’s proposal has at all been approximated in modernity? (Word count1820 words)

First this article will explore the claims which ground Kant’s argument for a universal

history by discussing the main arguments within each proposition in the essay. It will

then discuss the idea for a philosophical account of human history (eighth and ninth

propositions), it will provide a brief explanation of John Rawls’ contemporary, Kantian

influenced “Law of Peoples” and will finally briefly observe Kantian influence in

contemporary international politics offering some critique of the Kantian universal notion
of freedom.


Kant begins the essay with an account of nature. The first proposition describes a

determinism in nature “All natural capacities of a creature are destined sooner or later to

be developed completely and in conformity with their end”(Kant, p42). For Kant all

things within nature are causally linked and entail some kind of purpose or destiny. Next

Kant proposes that the key natural endowment of human beings is reason, and that the

full capacity of reason can be reached ‘only in the species but not in the

individual”(Kant,p42). The claim is that “every individual man would have to live a vast

amount of time if he were to learn how to make complete use of all his natural

capacities”(Kant,43). This focus on nature is important throughout the whole argument

because the ‘universal history’ arises naturally through reason.


In the third proposition Kant describes a kind of historical progress in relation to human

reason. The claim is that reason is something not innate or instinctual but something


eveloped and seemingly boundless, its development a historical process occurring over

many generations, pursuing some natural goal. Kant suggests that it is ‘natures will’ that

humans fully develop their natural capacity of reason. For Kant progress arrives through a
kind of struggle throughout time, human reason in its collective sense progressing

universally as a changing, learning entity. There is already a strong sense of universality

at this stage of the argument.


Kant’s fourth proposition explains the construction of social autonomy. The term

“unsocial sociability” (Kant, p44) is the Kantian paradoxical account of the human social

situation in the modern world. It is a kind of dualism between the social self and the

individual self. Kant claims that humans are inclined to live in society yet possess an

egoistic tendency. He argues that there is a kind of antagonism caused by this dualism

which creates a competitive drive within society. “Through the desire for honour, power

or property, it drives him to seek status among his fellows, whom he can not bear yet not

bear to leave.”(Kant, p44) The result of this antagonism is the natural progress Kant

suggested in the previous propositions. Further arising from this “unsocial sociability” is

an autonomous social order “Man wishes to live comfortably and pleasantly, but nature

intends that he should abandon idleness and inactive self sufficiency and plunge instead

into labour and hardships, so that he may by his own adroitness find means of liberating

himself from them in turn”(Kant, p45) Autonomy arises as a way of controlling the self

interest of others, a law governed social order is the result. Thus for Kant it is a

reciprocity between the individual and the social which allows for autonomous freedom

to actualise within society.


It is Kant’s fifth proposition which states that “The greatest problem for the human

species, the solution of which nature compels him to seek, is that of attaining a civil

society which can administer justice universally”(Kant, p45). Here Kant argues that

human natural capacity (reason) can only be fully realised in society, where there is

antagonism for it to progress. Kant proposes that proof of this seems to arise in

phenomena such as art, culture and law or the “fruits of his unsociability” (Kant, p46)

which are a kind of expression of the antagonism humans experience. He proposes that

there must be a “just civil constitution” controlling this antagonism and that in fact nature
‘intends’ that humans move towards the actualisation of this constitution as some kind of

goal of rationality. The sixth proposition addresses the problem of authority or how to

enforce this naturally rational justice. Kant describes corruption and the desire to follow

authority as two very intrinsic rational human traits. So the problem of a corrupt leader is

apparently the last obstacle hindering an ideal constitution. The solution here again

seems to come from a lean towards the universal collective population, again only by

learning over many generations will humans find the best answer to this question. By this

stage it is apparent that from the original claims of natural determinism a political

determinism has arisen and there is almost an obligation of natural duty connected.


Before Kant makes the proposal for achieving the universal history which in turn results

in the "perfect civil constitution"(Kant, p47) he establishes the importance of a

"law-governed relationship with external states"(Kant, p47). Again there is this apparent

antagonism between states similar to the antagonism within the states themselves “Nature
has thus again employed the unsociableness of men, and even of the large societies and states which human beings construct, as a means of arriving at a condition of calm and

security through their inevitable antagonism”(Kant, p47). Here the antagonism takes the

form of wars and international conflict and again the conflict must historically result in

autonomous constitution between states to limit the 'evils' that occur because of this

antagonism. This proposition interestingly infers the possibility of a rational world peace

as one of the aims of human nature. There is a real sense of universal principles of good

or right by this stage of the argument, almost a faith in the human species as an essentially
moral collective, and again there is this intent of nature for rationality to strive for these

principles.


The eighth proposition is where Kant actually defines human history as naturally

producing the ideal, universal political system, “The history of the human race as a

whole can be regarded as the realisation of a hidden plan of nature to bring about an

internally-and for this purpose also externally- perfect political constitution as the only

possible state within which all natural capacities of mankind can be developed

completely.”(Kant,p50) Kant argues that through trial and error in the various historical

struggles of civil society (ecconomy, leadership,wars) the perfect conditions of society

will develop and, ideally, spread across the globe. The ninth proposition follows from this
suggesting that with a greater understanding of the rational intent of nature, or a

philosophical understanding, a universal history might be constructed to predict the

nature of the political enlightment. Kant distinguishes that this model of historical

freedom is not empirically observable but is a normative theory or philosophical idea

which provides more of an account of how things should be “ if we assume a plan for


ature, we have grounds for greater hopes”(Kant, p52).


A contemporary political philosopher John Rawls gives a account of rational autonomy

very similar to the one just discussed. In Rawls’ account the focus is between different

groups of ‘peoples’ sharing “common sympathies”(Rawls p23) as opposed to states.

Rawls claims that there are realistic principles of right that arise through agreement

between different peoples, thus there is a kind of rational autonomous legitimation of

laws and principles. Like Kant, Rawls argues that there needs to be the correct conditions,
in this case liberal democracy, for a society to flourish, in his account it is a shared

sense of rationality between a “reasonable plurality” of peoples as moral agents, resulting

in a “realistic utopia”.


To briefly consider Kantian influence in modernity, it is hard to ignore notions of human

rights and their international enforcement when reading Kant’s account of history. There

have been attempts to institutionalise this Kantian form of international relations to

achieve “perpetual peace”(Kant), the most obvious is of course the United Nations. Kant

predicts this kind of union of nations in the text “in which every state, even the smallest,

could expect to derive its security and rights not from its own power or its own legal

judgement, but solely from this great federation, from a united power and the law

governed decisions of a united will.” (Kant p47) Whether there is any historical progress

occurring towards a certain rational goal is rather hard to determine. It may be the case

that in the western world there is a strong social push for moral progress, however it

becomes problematic to measure this progress once opposing cultural contexts come into

the picture. Next some criticisms will be offered which may explain the shortcomings of

antain universal ideas of freedom.


Firstly because this model of freedom is rather abstract and speculative in nature, its

empirical relevance is questionable. This model of freedom seems to have proven hugely

influential in international politics. However there is a certain corruptability in its utopian

nature because it lacks concrete applicability. It seems that the self interest or antagonism

of certain states has managed to override the normative universal authorities at times in

recent history. Where on one hand all Kant intends to do is offer a normative frame work

for a progress it fails to consider concrete aspects of reality which may limit this progress

towards the ‘right’ principles.


Finally Kant’s link between rationality and nature is seems too metaphorical, as opposed

to theoretical. It seems in a sense tautologous to assume that because reason arises

as a natural human trait that it follows a purely naturally determined path. One could

argue that the very nature of reason is one that transcends the intentions of anything

natural.


In his essay “Idea for a Universal history with a Cosmopolitan Purpose” Kant starts with a
kind of deterministic view of nature which results in a deterministic view of politics. He

arrives at this by an account of human nature which suggest that autonomy arises because

of the “unsocial sociability” of human beings. It is hard to deny that contemporary notions
of freedom are heavily influenced by Kant, particularly in the global sphere however it is

hard to say whether there is any real sense of political progess occurring throughout

history.


eferences:
Immanuel Kant, “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose”, Political Writing ,p41-53

John Rawls, “The Law of Peoples”, p 11-23