Kant's Theory Of The Right Of Resistance

The right of resistance is a question which the political philosophy and the legal philosophy debate unceasingly. From the historical development of the western legal thought, we could conclude that there are two basic opinions: one is anarchism; the other is totalitarianism. Between these two extremes are liberalism, communitarianism and socialism.Kant has explained the principle of the autonomy in his book Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Therefore, people often regard him as a firm liberalist. But in The Science of Right, Kant opposes the people's right to revolt the government's authority. Therefore, in Kant's thought, there is an obvious contradiction. My article attempts to analysis this contradiction and explain Kant's solution to it.In the first part, the question proposed and the framework of the argument established. In Kant's discourse on the right of resistance, the most important question is: how could Kant's opinion of the autonomy be consistent with his opinion of the right of resistance . That is to say, is Kant a liberalist or an authoritarian? My article attempts to expose the dualism of Kant's philosophy and point out the philosophical roots of this contradiction. Secondly, through revealing Kant's solution to this contradiction, we could get the fundamental nature of Kant's theory of the right of resistance.In the second part, I discuss the meanings, arguments and fundamental theorem of Kant's theory of the right of resistance. Through Peter Nicholson's analysis of Kant's text, I conclude that Kant's opposition of the right of resistance is based upon the idea that he considers the resistance as the positive violent resistance. Secondly, Kant opposes the right of resistance from two aspects: the first aspect is the principle of right which is rooted in his moral philosophy. Kant considers that the right of resistance is self-contradictory. The second aspect is the foundation of the legitimacy of state. Kant presupposes the supremacy of the sovereignty, and thinks the foundation of the sovereignty is not based upon higher natural law or general consent, but upon the fact of its existence. In my opinion, the fundamental reason is the idea of the morality of state. This idea is that the genesis and existence of the state is inevitable. The state is the result of the natural process. Individual has the duty or the responsibility to create a country.In the third part, I discuss the root of the contradiction between moral autonomy and opposition of the right of resistance. Through the analysis of the explanations of Kant's political philosophy, I conclude that they all neglect the complexity and the conflict intrinsic in Kant's thought, and thus does not able to see the conflict between modern political philosophy and classical political philosophy. This conflict is created by Machiavelli and Hobbes who make the gulf between moral and political things. In this sense, Kant introduces the idea of history in order to conciliate the separation. That is to say, Kant attempts to substitute the principle of happiness with the principle of justice (Recht) and afreshes the virtue of politics in order to conciliate the separation which is created by Machiavelli and Hobbes.In the fourth part, I discuss Kant's attempts to overcome the dualism by introducing the idea of history. The separation of the moral and political things is the result of Kant's philosophical dualism which is rooted in his epistemological critique. In other words, this kind of separation is rooted in the separation of two worlds: the sensible world and the trans-sensible world. The purpose of Kant's philosophy of history lies in joining these two separated world together, and joining the natural right and positive right together. But Kant's philosophy of history is not very successful. Kant want to introduce the idea of history to conciliate the dualism of phenomena and noumena, but it also gives birth to a new dualism: the"providence"and the history of individual. In my opinion, this new dualism is rooted in Kant's philosophical system, in other words, it is rooted in his"Critique of Practice Reason"and"Critique of Pure Reason". In order to overcome this dualism, the most important task is to reconsider Kant's"Critique of Practice Reason"and"Critique of Pure Reason".In the conclusion, I discuss that the question of the right of resistance which grows out of the context of Kant's moral philosophy is the result of Kant's philosophical dualism which gives birth to Kant's philosophy of history. In this sense, by introducing the idea of history, Kant attempts to conciliate the separation of politics and morals which is created by Machiavelli and Hobbes. That is to say, Kant attempts to substitute the principle of happiness with the principle of justice (Recht) and afreshes the virtue of politics in order to conciliate the separation which is created by Machiavelli and Hobbes.