Bringing Machiavelli and Kant Back in on Morality and World Politics. (October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kumar, Pavan
• Is Part Of: International studies. Volume 56:Number 4(2019)
• Page Start: 292
• Page End: 307
• Publication Date: 2019-10
• Subjects: Human nature -- international politics -- Kant -- Machiavelli -- morality -- necessity; International relations -- Periodicals; World politics -- Periodicals; National security -- Developing countries -- Periodicals; India -- Foreign relations -- Periodicals; Developing countries -- Foreign relations -- Periodicals; 327
• DOI: 10.1177/0020881719863284
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-8817

Abstract

This article is an attempt to understand the idea of morality in two of the most influential philosophers Niccolo Machiavelli ( The Prince and Discourses ) and Immanuel Kant ( Perpetual Peace and Metaphysical Elements of Justice ). Machiavelli and Kant are chosen because both of them are the most cherished philosophers in their fields. Machiavelli's name is associated with realism, and he got a bad name because of his alleged cruel advice to maintain the state. His name is equalled with cunningness, murder, treachery. On the other hand, Kant is the founding figure of idealism in politics. His focus on categorical imperative and human capabilities to attain the higher moral goals made him one of the most well-known philosophers on idealism. To understand the ethical problems of the day emphasis is given to the classic writings of scholars who have written extensively on morality, justice, state, power, human rights and individual freedom. This article is an attempt to answer the following questions: Is the state in itself a highest moral actor? Can there be an individual morality above the state? What should be the yardstick to judge an act—the act in itself or the outcome of the act? What are the duties and rights of the individual in domestic society and can there be a similarity of morality at the level of political leaders in international politics? The paper argues that both Machiavelli and Kant were dealing with different contexts and societies, and morality for them had different meanings. However, the end justifies the means dictum is not the right way to understand Machiavelli on morality.