ࡱ>  [bjbj:: BPP+  ...BBB8z44B(-(/(/(/(/(/(/(,*\-[(.[(L8p(..-(-(:#,#5># ((0(#...#.#0[([((. p:   The Development of Kants Cosmopolitanism Pauline Kleingeld University of Groningen, The Netherlands Pauline.kleingeld@rug.nl Introduction In his 1784 essay, Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective, Kant advocates the establishment of a worldwide federation of states. He writes that a cosmopolitan condition, which such a global federative body would create, is required for the security and stability of its member states. The security and stability of states, in turn, is required in order to facilitate the complete development of human predispositions for the use of reason, which Kant suggests is the final end of human history. The ideal of an international federation of states returns many times in Kants later writings, for instance, in the Critique of Judgment (1790), On the Common Saying: That May Be True in Theory, But it Is of No Use in Practice (1793), The Contest of the Faculties (1798), and most notably in Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795) and the Metaphysics of Morals (1797). It usually goes unnoticed in the literature, however, that although Kant uses some of the very same terminology of a federation of states (Vlkerbund) and of a cosmopolitan condition, the content of the ideal expressed by these terms changes greatly over time. Compared to its formulation in the Idea for a Universal History, Kants later texts introduce fundamental changes on a number of important points, such as on colonialism and slavery, the nature of the international federation, and the role of international trade. In other words, the view formulated in the 1784 essay is Kants early view, and he later modifies it in important respects. If my thesis is correct, it means that there are clear dangers associated with the tendency, in much of the literature on Kants cosmopolitanism, to take his work from the 1780s and 1790s as a unity. Commentators tend to pool the texts from this entire period and quote from passages early and late to characterize Kants view. Authors are certainly aware of the fact that he developed new arguments during this period, but when one passage seems to contradict another, more often than not the debate is still over the question whether Kant is consistent, rather than over the question of whether Kant changed his mind. Clearly, if it can be established that Kants cosmopolitanism underwent significant development during the 1780s and 1790s, this will provide a new and very important hermeneutical framework for our understanding of the texts. In this essay, I aim to highlight the most salient changes Kant made to his cosmopolitan theory, by contrasting his account in the Idea for a Universal History with his views as found in Toward Perpetual Peace and the Metaphysics of Morals. I start by explicating Kants early cosmopolitan theory as found in the 1784 article (section 1). I subsequently examine which essential elements were revised in the mid 1790s (section 2) and which remained constant (section 3). 1. Kants early cosmopolitan account The cosmopolitan condition Kant envisages in the Idea for a Universal History is that of a state-like federation of states. This strong type of federation is required, on Kants view, to guarantee the security of just states; and just states are in turn required for the full development of human predispositions for the use of reason. The full development of human rational capacities is to culminate in what Kant calls the transformation of society into a moral whole (IUH, 8:21).  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Kant argues that the way in which states are to leave the state of nature to join into a state-like federation is structurally similar to the way individuals leave the state of nature to join into a state. In both cases, the hardship resulting from their rivalry and fights eventually forces them, in the interest of their own security and freedom, to give up their wild freedom. Individuals unite into a state in which freedom under external laws can be encountered combined in the greatest possible degree, with irresistible power (IUH, 8:22). Similarly, Kant claims, states will be forced, by the hardship resulting from the rivalry and wars among them, to exit the state of nature and enter a juridical condition. States exhibit the same unsociability, they experience precisely the ills that pressured individual human beings and compelled them to enter into a lawful civil condition, and thus states too will come to see the advantages of joining a federation with common laws and law enforcement (IUH, 8:24). This federation has the same features as a state. In such a federation of states every state, even the smallest, could expect its security and rights, not from its own power, or its own juridical judgment, but only from this great federation of peoples (Foedus Amphictyonum), from a united power [vereinigte Gewalt] and from the decision in accordance with laws of the united will (IUH, 8:24). It is clear from the way that Kant explicates the function of this federation that it is not the voluntary league that he introduces more than a decade later, in Toward Perpetual Peace. The federation meant in the Idea for a Universal History is one that is supposed to guarantee the states security and rights, which are grounded in the laws of the united will and enforced and guaranteed through a united power. Kant describes this cosmopolitan condition, which will come about once states form a federation, as resembling a civil commonwealth (IUH, 8:25). He refers to the work of Abb de St. Pierre, who had proposed a permanent senate and an international court of arbitration backed up by international law enforcement, as defending a view similar to his own. In fact, already in the Lectures on Anthropology from 17756, Kant had advocated an international federation with a general senate of peoples that would adjudicate all international conflicts, and whose verdict should be executed by a power of the peoples, which would mean that peoples should be subject to civil coercive power (brgerliche Gewalt) (V-Anth/Fried, 25:676). Kant does not provide details as to the different institutions such an international political body should include. Thus, it remains unclear whether all states should have voting rights in a federal legislative body, whether the federation should have a standing army to enforce its rules, and so on. Perhaps Kants reference to the Abb de St. Pierre means that he agreed with the latters proposals on these matters. Perhaps, also, Kant simply left these matters undecided because his interest in the Idea for a Universal History is in finding a unifying principle for organizing human history it is not meant to be a treatise on international relations specifically. More surprising than the lack of detail, however, is the fact that Kant does not reflect on the possible injustice of a strong federation of states a problem of which he is keenly aware when it comes to the state. With regard to the state, Kant famously discusses the problem that human nature prevents states from ever being fully perfect. The crooked timber of which humanity is made does not allow the creation of something perfectly straight (IUH, 8:23), because rulers will always be inclined to let their own selfishness prevail over the general will. Moreover, Kant claims that a perfect state constitution cannot be achieved solely on the basis of self-interest, since it also requires a good will that is prepared to accept it (IUH, 8:23); but a good will is more likely to develop within the good state. For these reasons, Kant argues in the Idea for a Universal History, the problem of creating a perfectly just state constitution is insoluble (IUH, 8:23). One would expect Kant to bring up this problem again in the context of his discussion of the cosmopolitan condition, but he does not. He fails to discuss the problem that imperfect states are likely to form an imperfect federation, and that an imperfect federation with coercive powers may do great injustice. Later, in Toward Perpetual Peace, Kant seems to acknowledge precisely this problem when he introduces a looser kind of international federation in which states retain their full sovereignty and do not subject themselves to coercive powers at the federal level, as I shall explain below. Another issue about which Kant says very little in the Idea for a Universal History is the make-up of the federation. Who are the intended member states? Does the federation consist of European states only, or is it meant to extend globally? Kants language of cosmopolitanism seems to suggest the latter. But if so, is it an egalitarian federation? One off-hand comment in the Idea for a Universal History makes it sounds as if Kants conception of the final end of history includes colonial relationships. Kant suggests, towards the end of the essay and between parentheses, that our part of the world (Europe) will probably someday give laws to all the others [viz., the other parts of the world] (IUH, 8:29). Without further explanation, this comment is ambiguous. It could in theory be interpreted as an empirical prediction on Kants part about the (unfortunate) direction in which international relations are likely to develop. On the other hand, given that the entire essay outlines a teleological view of history as moving towards an ideal end-state, this reading does not seem plausible. If the situation in which non-Europeans do not give laws to themselves but receive laws from Europe is not part of the final end of history, why would Kant mention it here? If he does not believe that Europes legislating for the rest of the world constitutes a kind of progress, mentioning it as the probable result of history would run counter to the teleological process he sketches in this essay. If Kant does regard European legislation for the rest of the world as part of the final end of history, on the other hand, then this claim fits well with other comments he made elsewhere, also during the 1780s, to the effect that most non-white races are not capable of self-legislation. A non-literal reading of Kants comment turns out to be implausible when the passage is read within the broader context of Kants views on racial hierarchy and colonialism. For example, Kant wrote that [Native] Americans and Negroes cannot govern themselves. Thus, [they] serve only as slaves (Sketches for the Lectures on Anthropology, from the 1780s, Refl, 15:878). And according to his Lectures on Physical Geography Doenhoff, dated 1782, Kant explained to his students that India would be much happier under a stronger form of European colonial rule: These peoples [viz., in India] deserve a better fate than their current one, because it is a very manageable and easily governed people! The current fate of India depends as little on the French as on the English, but this much is certain, that if they were to be ruled by a European sovereign, the nation would become happier. (V-PG Doenhoff, p. 178) In his yearly anthropology lectures, Kant explained the details of the racial hierarchy as he conceived of it, in particular the various intellectual and agential deficits of the non-white races. In anthropology lectures from (probably) 1781-82, Kant asserts that Native Americans are the lowest of the races, as they are inert, impassive, and incapable of being educated at all. He places the Negroes above them, as they are capable of being trained to be slaves (but incapable of any other form of education); the Hindus have yet more potential, but whites form the only non-deficient race (V-Anth/Mensch, 25.2:1187). Kant repeated such claims each year in his anthropology lectures, under the heading of racial character, at least through 17912 (the final year from which lecture notes are available). Also noteworthy is Kants endorsement, in 1788, only months after the publication of the Critique of Practical Reason, of a critique of abolitionism (TP, 8:174n), and his reference to the levels which we have mentioned as racial differences and various agency-related deficits on the part of non-Europeans (TP, 8:1736). Against the background of Kants views on racial hierarchy and his associated defence of colonialism that we find consistently repeated in his lectures and in some of his published writings from the 1780s, both before and after the Idea for a Universal History, it is clear how world-wide European legislation could be part of his conception of the final end of history. In the next section, I discuss the evidence that Kant changed his cosmopolitan theory in important respects. Kant does not provide autobiographical comments on the matter. Showing that Kants views underwent substantial revisions, then, requires not just textual evidence that there is a difference between earlier and later viewsafter all, mere differences might be the result of confusion or carelessness on Kants part. Rather, it requires evidence of a coherent pattern of changes, preferably in combination with some indication of why Kant might have preferred the later views over the earlier ones. I believe both can be provided. 2. Reconceiving the cosmopolitan condition Kants views on the cosmopolitan condition undergo important modifications over time. In the Idea for a Universal History, he advocates the establishment of a strong federation of states with coercive authority at the federal level, and like the Abb de Saint-Pierre, he appeals to the enlightened self-interest of rulers and states to defend the feasibility of this ideal. Later, however, most clearly in Toward Perpetual Peace and the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant changes his conception of the cosmopolitan condition. The idea of the republic now starts to play a pivotal role; Kant introduces a different type of federation, namely, a loose, non-coercive league; he introduces the notion of cosmopolitan right and becomes very critical of colonialism; and he conceives of a new role for global trade. a. Building straight with crooked timber: The new importance of the republic in Kants philosophy of right Starting in the 1790s, Kant conceives of the ideal inner structure of the member states of the international federation as republican. By a republic Kant means a state that is characterized by a separation of powers and by the fact that the subjects are also citizens, i.e., a state in which the legislative power is in the hands of the people through their representatives. The republic is the only kind of state that is fully in accordance with the normative requirements that follow from the principle of right (PP, 8:34953, 366; MM, 6:341), which itself is grounded in individual freedom. Kant regards the republican state as fully feasible. First, he explicitly addresses the objection that only a people of angels could produce and maintain a perfect state. Kant now replies that the self-interested inclinations of humans are sufficient to account for the possibility of the just republic. Even a people of devils would form a republic, at least if they are intelligent (PP, 8:366). This is because the republic is the form of government that is most in accordance with the self-interest of individuals. Second, a despotic ruler can organize a war on a whim, as he will simply let his subjects bear the costs. An overspending despot is therefore more likely to cause the collapse of the state or be forced to make concessions to his subjects creating opportunities to reform the state in the direction of a republic. Thus, we find that in the 1790s that Kant gives up his claims in the Idea for a Universal History that good will is necessary to establish the just state and that the crooked timber quality of human nature implies that states will always be imperfect. Kant now claims that the just republic can be fully realized, and that if the organization of the state is republican (which is certainly within the capacity of humans, Kant adds) the selfish inclinations of people can in fact cancel each other out, so that the result turns out as if [these selfish inclinations] did not exist (PP, 8:366). This is quite a departure from the Idea for a Universal History. Not only does it imply a rejection of the earlier claim that a good will is necessary for the establishment of a good state, but it also implies that Kant now distances himself from the earlier and famous crooked timber passage. His picture of human nature has not become more sanguine, and he repeated its characterization in terms of crooked timber in Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (Rel, 6:100). But Kant no longer believes that it creates insoluble difficulties for the realization of a just state. In the idea of the republic, Kant found a solution to the problem. To extend Kants metaphor from the Idea for a Universal History and use Kants organization terminology from Toward Perpetual Peace: if only the crooked pieces of timber are organized in the right way, the resulting structure can be straight. Kant explicitly rejects his earlier statement that a good will is necessary for accepting a just state constitution, now claiming that it should not be expected that a good state constitution would arise from inner morality, but rather conversely that the good moral education of a people would follow from the former (PP, 8:366). With regard to the role of the republic for the establishment of an international federation, Kant again highlights the advantages of the republican constitution. A republic inherently tends toward peace, in his view, because it is in the interest of the republics citizens to be peaceful towards other states. When the citizens of a republic deliberate about whether to go to war, they will realize that they themselves shoulder all the costs, financial and otherwise, and this will naturally make republics disinclined to go to war (PP, 8:352). By introducing the notion of the peaceful nature of republics, Kant strengthens his argument for the feasibility of the cosmopolitan condition. International peace is no longer merely in the interest of states and rulers. Given that there is a natural tendency towards republics, and that republics have a natural tendency toward peace, Kant anchors the feasibility of international peace in the interests of both the republic as a whole and its individual citizens. While working out his republican political theory, Kant continues to tinker with the relationship between the development of the just state and that of the international federation. In the Idea for a Universal History, he still regards the solution of the first as dependent upon the second, claiming that the achievement of a perfect state constitution is not possible until rightful external relations among states (in an international federation) have been achieved (IUH, 8:24). In later essays he turns the order around and claims that international peace will not be achieved until after states have become republics (e.g., TP, 8:311). In Toward Perpetual Peace, Kant revises his view again, arguing that the two requirements stand in a reciprocal relationship (along with a third requirement, that of cosmopolitan right) and that the one cannot be fully achieved without the other (PP, 8: 349n). b. Inserting a different type of federation Kants elaboration of his republican political theory has significant effects on his conception of the normative ideal of the international federation. If individual freedom is taken seriously as the ultimate justification of coercive political institutions, and if, therefore, the republican state in which citizens co-legislate through their representatives is the only just state, then Kant has to argue that republican states should not be forced into an international federation against their will. He cannot consistently argue that it would be normatively right for a federation to incorporate an unwilling republic by military means, since this would be a flagrant disregard for the political autonomy of the people. In this regard there is a disanalogy between the state of nature among individuals, on the one hand, and the state of nature among states, on the other; for individuals do have this right to force each other into a state against their will (PP, 8:349n). This is likely to be part of the explanation for why Kant introduces, in Toward Perpetual Peace, the ideal of a voluntary association of states, also called a federation but now one without coercive powers. In Toward Perpetual Peace, Kant argues that this federation of free states aims at securing and maintaining the freedom of a state for itself and also the freedom of other confederated states without these states thereby being required, as are human beings in the state of nature, to subject themselves to public laws and coercion under such laws. (PP, 8:356) Kant here inserts a new type of institution between the state of nature and the cosmopolitan condition, namely a voluntary league of states without coercive powers. The fact that Kant continues to use the term federation (Bund) to refer to this different type of institution can easily obscure the difference. The term Bund itself is neutral, however, as to whether or not the institution has the power to enforce its laws. Depending on the nature of the agreement between the states, federative unions can have a strong centralized federal government with binding public laws and coercive powers to enforce them; or they can lack coercive powers and take the form of a voluntary association of states that share certain goals; or they can fall somewhere in between. In Idea for a Universal History Kant envisioned a strong federal authority; here in Toward Perpetual Peace, by contrast, he also uses the same term (Bund) for a much weaker kind of entity. This league, while certainly not able to guarantee the security of states, will still have significant positive effects. By offering a forum for international arbitration and negotiation, it helps to reduce global conflict and increase the security of states (cp. MM, 6:3501). This in turn allows for the further development of human predispositions, which will lead to a gradual approximation of humans to a greater agreement on principles (PP, 8:367). This, then, paves the way for a stronger union in a stronger type of federation, which Kant still claims is the ultimate ideal, but only when voluntarily accepted by (and not coercively imposed on) its member states. Kant does not give up the ideal of the strong, state-like federation that he defended in the Idea for a Universal History, but he now places it at the end of a more protracted process that first involves the establishment of a voluntary non-coercive league. That Kant still defends the strong federation can be seen in a number of passages in both Toward Perpetual Peace and the Metaphysics of Morals. He expresses the hope that distant parts of the world can peaceably enter into relations with each other, relations which can ultimately become publicly lawful and so bring humanity finally ever closer to a cosmopolitan constitution (PP, 8:358). He writes that justice requires an internal constitution of the state in accordance with pure principles of right, and then further, however, the union of this state with other neighbouring or also distant states for the purpose of a lawful settlement of their conflicts (PP, 8:379). And he writes in the Metaphysics of Morals that before states leave the state of nature all international right is merely provisional, and that international right can come to hold definitively and establish a true perpetual peace only in a universal union of states [Staatenverein] (analogous to that by which a people becomes a state), a union which Kant on the same page also refers to as a state of peoples (Vlkerstaat) (MM, 6:350). He regards this as the ultimate ideal that can and ought to be approximated, even though it will perhaps never be fully realized. c. Toward a more egalitarian cosmopolitan condition Until the 1790s, Kant discussed the cosmopolitan condition merely in terms of a federation of states. As he worked out more details of his political theory, however, he realized that a genuine global legal order requires more. Individuals establish a civil condition by their joint submission to a state with common laws and law enforcement, and states establish a civil condition by joining an international federation but what about the lawful regulation of the relations between states and foreign individuals? Or between individuals from one state and peoples that have not yet formed a state? In the Idea for a Universal History Kant does not yet raise these questions, limiting his discussion to the juridical regulation of relations among individuals (in the state) and among states (in the international federation). Kant says very little, for example, about the conduct of European states elsewhere in the world. And as we saw, the only comment he makes on that subject should probably be read as meaning that Europe will probably eventually legislate for the rest of the world. In Toward Perpetual Peace and the Metaphysics of Morals, by contrast, Kant explicitly strengthens the juridical status of individuals regardless of their race. Furthermore, he now takes a very critical stance on European practices on other continents, such as the slave trade and colonialism. The fact that Kant strengthens the juridical status of non-whites is clear from his discussion of cosmopolitan right. In Kant's political theory, cosmopolitan right (Weltbrgerrecht) is the third category of public right, in addition to constitutional right and international right. He argues that states and individuals have the right to attempt to establish relations with other states and their citizens, but not a right to enter foreign territory. States and non-state populations have the right to refuse visitors, but not violently, and not if it leads to the latters destruction (PP, 8:35760; MM, 6:3523). Kant defends the right of China and Japan to refuse access to most foreigners. He writes that he regards their refusal as legitimate given their experience with the violent and imperialist conduct of European powers (PP, 8: 359). Furthermore, he argues that states are obligated to refrain from imperialist intrusions into non-state territories. Cosmopolitan right, as introduced in Toward Perpetual Peace, explicitly prohibits the colonial conquest, by states in our part of the world, of lands elsewhere. Kant also strongly condemns the subjugation of their inhabitants (PP, 8:358). In his notes for Toward Perpetual Peace (17945), Kant repeatedly and explicitly criticizes the enslavement of non-Europeans in the strongest terms, as a grave violation of cosmopolitan right: The principles underlying the supposed lawfulness of appropriating newly discovered and purportedly barbaric or irreligious lands, as goods belonging to no one, without the consent of the inhabitants and even subjugating them as well, are absolutely contrary to cosmopolitan right. (VA PP, 23:1734) And in a famous passage from Toward Perpetual Peace: If one compares [with the principle of cosmopolitan right] the inhospitable behaviour of civilized, especially trading states in our part of the world, the injustice they show in visiting foreign land and peoples (which with them is tantamount to conquering them) goes to horrifying lengths. When America, the negro countries, the Spice Islands, the Cape, and so forth, were discovered, they were, to them, countries belonging to no one, since they counted the inhabitants as nothing. In the East Indies (Hindustan), they brought in foreign soldiers under the pretext of merely proposing to set up trading posts, but with them oppression of the inhabitants, incitement of the various Indian states to widespread wars, famine, rebellions, treachery, and the whole litany of evils that oppress the human race (PP, 8:3589). Note that here the Americas, Africa, India, and so forth are explicitly mentioned. Cosmopolitan right is explicitly said to cover indigenous populations on other continents, and not just (white) Europeans. Dropping his earlier claim that Blacks and Native Americans cannot govern themselves and that Europe will probably eventually legislate for all other continents, Kant here envisions a world in which peoples on different continents together make public laws to regulate their interaction peacefully and in accordance with the normative principles of right. d. Trade It is well known that Kant praises the spirit of trade for promoting peace (PP, 8:368). But he did not always describe trade and peace in positive terms. In a striking passage in the Critique of Judgment (1790), for example, his attitude was rather negative, because of the bad effects he attributed to the inherent focus on self-interest operative in trading relationships. Kant contrasted the sublime effects of war with the debasing effects of the spirit of trade: Even war, when it is conducted with order and respect for civil rights, has something sublime about it, and it also makes the manner of thinking of a people conducting war in this way only more sublime, the more dangers it was exposed to and was able to stand up to with courage. By contrast, a long peace tends to make the mere spirit of trade dominant and with it base self-interest, cowardice, and weakness, and thus [a long peace] tends to debase the manner of thinking of a people. (CJ, 5:263) However, by the time Kant introduces the new notion of cosmopolitan right in Toward Perpetual Peace (1795), his assessment has changed radically. In light of the importance Kant here attributes to mutual understanding, community and peace, it is clear that he is now unambiguously positive about the effects of trade. He writes that it was trade which first brought [peoples] into peaceful relations with one another, even with those at a great distance, and thereby into relationships based on mutual understanding, community, and peace (PP, 8:364). In Toward Perpetual Peace the spirit of trade is the answer to the question of what can guarantee that the principles of cosmopolitan right will be respected. He now calls the peace resulting from trade noble rather than debasing, and writes that the spirit of trade leads to a situation that functionally resembles a league of states (the establishment of which Kant also advocates in Toward Perpetual Peace, as discussed above). He writes: It is the spirit of trade, which cannot coexist with war, and which will, sooner or later, take hold of every people. Since among all of the powers (means) subordinate to state authority, the power of money is likely the most reliable, states find themselves forced (although not exactly by incentives of morality) to promote the noble peace and, wherever in the world war threatens to break out, to avert it by means of negotiations, just as if they were members of a permanent league. (PP, 8:368) Kant argues here that trade unites different states (and their populations) through reciprocal interest and mutual benefit, and that in cases where tensions emerge between states, the spirit of trade pushes them to pursue negotiation and mediation (as quoted, just as if they were members of a permanent league). In this way, international trade enables further steps on the way towards a global realm of peaceful interaction. 3. Continuity: The final end of human history as a moral world Although Kant re-thought a number of problems that were connected with his early views, some significant elements of his conception of cosmopolitanism remain the same. Throughout the 1780s and 1790s, Kant remains committed to the view, found in the Idea for a Universal History, that the final end of history is the complete development of the predispositions for the use of reason, and that this complete development will culminate in humans using their reason to determine their will, i.e., to act morally. Although this moralization cannot be reached completely, it can be approximated. The final end of history according to the Idea for a Universal History seems to be identical to the moral world discussed in the Critique of Pure Reason. In the first Critique, this is the ideal of the world as it would be if it were in conformity with all moral laws (CPuR, A808/B836). This is the world in which all agents act morally, and in which, as a consequence of their virtuous action, all are happy (CPuR, A809/B837). The virtuous agents in the moral world are themselves, under the guidance of [moral] principles, the authors both of their own enduring well-being and of that of others (CPuR, A809/B837). Kant argues that our action should aim at bringing the sensible world into conformity with such a moral world (CPuR, A808/B836). Kants theory in the Idea for a Universal History seems to be an elaboration of the way in which this moral world is to be approximated in the sensible world. After all, according to the second proposition that Kant formulates in the article, the goal of history is the full development of the human predispositions for the use of reason which is to culminate in moral agency; and according to the third proposition, humans should be the source of their own perfection and of the general happiness (IUH, 8:1820). In the Critique of Judgment, Kant again discusses the ideal of a moral world composed of general virtue and general happiness (CJ, 5:445, 448, 453); and here he explicitly connects this ideal with historical progress. He discusses the way nature is teleologically oriented towards the development of the predispositions for the use of reason (culture); and he argues that culture is itself subservient to the final end of creation, viz., to humans as moral beings (CJ, 5:4346). Another element that remains the same throughout Kants writings of the 1780s and 1790s is his view that the development of legal institutions (especially the state and the international federation) plays an important role in the teleological historical process. Although he changed his view as to whether a good will was necessary for forming a just state in the first place, Kant always held that the establishment of a just state would be conducive to further development of the predispositions for the use of reason in humans. For example, a particularly salient passage is found in the Vorarbeiten to the Metaphysics of Morals, where Kant thematises the relationship between legal and moral progress: [W]hen the laws secure freedom externally, the maxims to also govern oneself internally in accordance with laws can liven up; and conversely, the latter in turn make it easier through their dispositions for lawful coercion to have an influence, so that peaceable behaviour [friedliches Verhalten] under public laws and pacific dispositions [friedfertige Gesinnungen] (to also end the inner war between principles and inclinations), i.e., legality and morality find in the concept of peace the point of support for the transition from the Doctrine of Right to the Doctrine of Virtue. (VA MM, 23:3545). 4. Conclusion In short, Kant remains committed to the view that morality is the final end, but other details of his cosmopolitan theory change over time. In the mid 1790s, Kant changes his view concerning both the content and the conditions for the approximate realization of the ideal international federation. In addition, he drops his earlier defence of a racial hierarchy, develops the category of cosmopolitan right, becomes critical of the exploitative colonialist practices of Europeans on other continents, changes his view of the relation between the development of the just state and the formation of an international federation (adding the new crucial role of republics), and develops a positive assessment of the role of international trade in the process towards peace. Abbreviations: Anth = Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view CJ = Critique of judgment CpuR = Critique of pure reason IUH = Idea for a universal history MM = Metaphysics of morals PG = Physical geography PP = Toward perpetual peace Rel = Religion within the boundaries of mere reason TP = On the common saying: This may be correct in theory, but it is of no use in practice V = Lectures VA = Sketches and notes References Anderson-Gold, S. (2001) Unnecessary Evil: History and Moral Progress in the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Albany: SUNY Press. Guyer, P. (2009) The Crooked Timber of Mankind. In: A. O. Rorty and J. Schmidt, eds., Kants Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129-49. Hedrick, T. (2008) Race, Difference, and Anthropology in Kants Cosmopolitanism, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 46, pp. 24568. Hffe, O. ed. (2011) Die Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag). Kleingeld, P. (1995) Forschritt und Vernunft: Zur Geschichtsphilosophie Kants. Wrzburg: Knigshausen und Neumann. Kleingeld, P. (2004) Approaching Perpetual Peace: Kants Defence of a League of States and his Ideal of a World Federation, European Journal of Philosophy, 12, pp. 30425. Kleingeld, P. (2007) Kants Second Thoughts on Race, The Philosophical Quarterly, 57, pp. 57392. Kleingeld, P. (2009) Kant and Cosmopolitanism. In: A. O. Rorty and J. Schmidt, eds., Kants Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17186. Kleingeld, P. (2012) Kant and Cosmopolitanism: The Philosophical Ideal of World Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Louden, R. (2000) Kants Impure Ethics: From Rational Beings to Human Beings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rorty, A. O. and Schmidt, J. eds. (2009). Kants Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wood, A. (1999) Kants Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ypi, L. and Flikschuh, K. Eds. (forthcoming). Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Notes     PAGE 1  Kant often uses the term people (Volk) in the political sense of a group of individuals who are united under common laws, hence who form a state (cp. MM, 6:344). Accordingly, Kant indicates at the beginning of his discussion of international right in Toward Perpetual Peace that he is discussing peoples as states (Vlker als Staaten) (PP, 8:354), and in the subsequent discussion he refers to a league of states and a league of peoples interchangeably. In the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant notes that the term right of peoples (Vlkerrecht, international law) is strictly speaking a misnomer and that the appropriate term would be right of states (Staatenrecht) (MM, 6:343). Therefore, Vlkerbund can be translated both as federation of peoples and as federation of states.  For recent discussions of related aspects of Kants 1784 essay, see Rorty and Schmidt (2009) and Hffe (2011).  On Kants philosophy of history, see Anderson-Gold (2001), Louden (2000, p. 140-64), Wood (1999, part 2), and my Kleingeld (1995). On the justification and epistemic status of Kants claims regarding historical progress in the Idea for a Universal History, see Kleingeld (1995, chapter 1).  On this issue, see also Guyer (2009, pp. 129-49).  See, for example, Hedrick (2008, p. 262).  It is well-known that Kant held racist views during the pre-critical period. Notorious is his remark, in Observations on the Beautiful and the Sublime (1764), that the fact that a negro carpenter was black from head to toe clearly proved that what he said was stupid (2:255). Furthermore, Kant cited Humes comment that no Negro has ever shown any talent and concludes that the differences between blacks and whites are essential and seem to be as large with regard to mental powers as they are in color (2:253). Kants racist remarks are not confined to the pre-critical works, however.  For a fuller treatment of Kants views on race, and for more literature on Kant and race, see my article Kleingeld (2007).  For further discussion of Kants attitude toward colonialism, see Lea Ypi and Katrin Flikschuh (forthcoming).  This idea is an obvious reference to events in France, cp. MM, 6:341 and TP, 8:311.  For the full argument for the claims in this section, see my article Kleingeld (2004) and my book Kleingeld (2012).  For further discussion, see Kleingeld (2007).  The one possible exception here is a comment in the second part of the Contest of the Faculties (SF, 7:91) which, however, contradicts other statements in that article which do mention moral progress (SF, 7:85-9). )*;<Ude}~ ƻƳي|qf[PPE=homH sH hyhkAmH sH hyh'tmH sH hyh,mH sH hyh,dmH sH hyhcmH sH hyho5\mH sH hqw5\mH sH hyhqtmH sH hyhcgmH sH hcgmH sH h'tmH sH hyh.ImH sH hyhqwmH sH hgmH sH hyhqw5\mH sH hyhd5\mH sH hA5\mH sH *<e~P "&((.2p3W9 dh1$^gdV dh^gdV dh1$gdVdhgdV  % / 8 9 O P Q _ f ) * { |   $ ( H d e f Ĺꕹx깕Ԯ̮!jhyhSKt0JUmH sH hyhL6mH sH hyhLmH sH hyhqw6]mH sH hyhw`5mH sH hyhiYmH sH hY+}mH sH homH sH hyh,dmH sH hyh,mH sH hyhqwmH sH hyh|mH sH . ,.nsz$Vb $)1BC|qqqfhyhmH sH hyhsmH sH hGXmH sH hYmH sH hn$\mH sH h_mH sH h7/hDC;6mH sH hDC;6mH sH hYmH sH hN^mH sH hDC;mH sH hyhomH sH hyhqw6]mH sH hyhqwmH sH hyhw`5mH sH hmH sH &C_RSi./BKLZyz{|˵ud˵!jhyhP0JUmH sH hnho5\mH sH hY+}5\mH sH hyhqw5\mH sH hyhP5\mH sH hyhUmH sH hyhPmH sH hyhqwmH sH hyh.ImH sH hyh6mH sH hyh,dmH sH hyhmH sH htmH sH 'QRU'./18SZmnz|}ɨ~~shZsZshyhqw6]mH sH hyhkAmH sH hyh,dmH sH hRmH sH h+gmH sH jhyhqwUmH sH hyhPzmH sH !jhyhD0JUmH sH hNTmH sH hSDmH sH hyhmH sH hyh.ImH sH hyhDXmH sH hyhMMmH sH hyhqwmH sH #=D  ~/0OP(9} (+A_`|}+,hyh.ImH sH himH sH h+gmH sH hZmH sH hyhNTmH sH hyh,dmH sH hyhqw6]mH sH hyhkAmH sH hNTmH sH hSDmH sH hyhqwmH sH 8,<{}~  ꭡwllhyhtZ mH sH hv\_]mH sH hyhqw6]mH sH hv\_mH sH hyh4mH sH hZ5h46mH sH hZ5hqw6mH sH hyh![mH sH hyhkAmH sH h fmH sH hSDmH sH hyh,dmH sH hyhqwmH sH hyh<mH sH ' !%!H!!!!!""""#"""""D#E#F#G#I## $ $$$$t$u$w$x$y$z${$~$$%.%5%E%R%S%T%\%j%m%n%%%%퍅}h?2mH sH hSDmH sH hyhkAmH sH hyhjumH sH hyh&3mH sH hyh4mH sH hyh8hhmH sH hyh /mH sH hyh,dmH sH h+gmH sH hyh.ImH sH hyhqwmH sH h /mH sH 1%%%%%%% & &)&*&E&T&u&x&~&&&&''''(((((((((( )娝wlaVVhyh&3mH sH hyhYmH sH hyh>xmH sH hyhmH sH hTamH sH h+gmH sH hyhjumH sH hyhImH sH !jhyhU30JUmH sH hyhqw6]mH sH hyh,dmH sH hf4mH sH hyh.ImH sH hyhqwmH sH h /mH sH hSDmH sH ! )/)2)A)P)T)])f)u)v)"*-*V*W*s*t*u****$+%+:+;+E+F+++++++,,Z.c.{......x0JUmH sH hyhkAmH sH h(JmH sH hSDmH sH hyhs0mH sH hyh,dmH sH hyh&36mH sH hyh>xmH sH hyhYmH sH hyh&3mH sH hyh.ImH sH himH sH *x0JUmH sH hyh.ImH sH hyh>x6]mH sH hyh,dmH sH hyhs0mH sH hyh>xmH sH hv\_mH sH (3444544455w5x5~555555I6b66666667737475767<7=7>7U7Y7Z7777777777ºدؤ؅zؙ͙͙ozoohyhmH sH hyhM-mH sH hSDmH sH hyh6mH sH hyh>xmH sH hyhmH sH hyh4mH sH hFH4mH sH hyhtZ mH sH hyh,dmH sH hyh8imH sH hyh.ImH sH !jhyh90JUmH sH +7777 88"8.858k8n8|88888888888)9,9-9;9T9U9V9W99::=:D:߫ߣ߇wog_Wghw*mH sH haFmH sH h{mH sH hXomH sH hmH sH h)JmH sH !jhyh0JUmH sH hyhFH4mH sH h4mH sH hyhjmH sH hyh,dmH sH hyhemH sH hyhmH sH hFH4mH sH hyhmH sH hyh>xmH sH hyhmH sH "D:E:x::::+;2;=;z;;;;;;;;;;<<<<.</<b<c<<<<====ø{p{p{p{ph{`X{hFH4mH sH h4mH sH hv\_mH sH hyh,dmH sH hyhqwmH sH hqw5\mH sH hyhqw5\mH sH hyhU35\mH sH hyh>xmH sH hyhXomH sH h{mH sH h^@mH sH h7/haF6mH sH hXomH sH haF6mH sH haFmH sH hw*mH sH !W9;;<+?,??A3EeLN`PSSTWY'Z]`vfwffijlq dh1$^gdVdhgdV dh1$gdV====== >,>;>K>f>>>>>>>?? ??)?+?,?2?T?????????@ @!@&@ɾɳԫԾԚ{peephyhYmH sH hyhD@3mH sH h{$D56\]mH sH  hyh,d56\]mH sH  hyh{$D56\]mH sH h+gmH sH hyh-mH sH hyhemH sH hyhgmH sH hyh{$DmH sH h4mH sH hyhqwmH sH hyhqw6]mH sH %&@'@/@0@AAAAAAAAAAA&C'C7C8CSCrCtCuC1E2E3ETEYEyEzEEEEEEEEEEEEE]FaFFFF꠱whyhn 6]mH sH h4mH sH hUmH sH hyhn mH sH  jhyhn H*UmH sH hyh20mH sH hnmH sH hyh4mH sH h20mH sH hmH sH hyhM-mH sH hyhqwmH sH hyh,dmH sH .FFFFFFRRRRRRRSSSSSܶ綮ܞ箞xxxh6mH sH hyh![mH sH h'mH sH hyh'RmH sH h'RmH sH h*mH sH hmH sH hyhM-mH sH hxmH sH hyhxgmH sH hyh VmH sH hyh,dmH sH hyhImH sH hyhn mH sH hAmH sH  hyhFb56\]mH sH h 056\]mH sH  hyhn 56\]mH sH h+g56\]mH sH  hyhw56\]mH sH !j kk,k-k8kkkkkklll%l=lGlllllmm0nXnfnhninunvnwn~nnn[o]ogohoɾ畊zozog__h1mH sH hmH sH hyh4mH sH hxgmH sH hmH sH hyhM-mH sH hyh)5mH sH hyh9 mH sH h'mH sH hyhxgmH sH hyhL?mH sH hyh VmH sH hyhi mH sH h 0mH sH hyhn mH sH hyhn 6]mH sH %hoooooppOpPphpipjppppppppppppmqqqrrrrrrrrrrrrr.s;ssss̛znnnhyh-o6mH sH hyh8hhmH sH hyh-omH sH hyhxgmH sH hyh4mH sH hyhM-mH sH hmH sH hxgmH sH hyh,dmH sH hyhn 6]mH sH h`mH sH hyh)5mH sH hyhn mH sH h1mH sH +qrr%v\x]xfxAz4| TO1NO]^_ndhgd?2dhgdV dh1$gdV dh1$^gdVssvvvv!vQvRv^v_vvvwwwZx[x\x]xaxexfxgxhx跬n]ODh\\]mH sH hyhn \]mH sH  hyhxg56\]mH sH  hyh![56\]mH sH  hyhn 56\]mH sH  jhyhn H*UmH sH hyhi mH sH hyh)5mH sH hyhn mH sH hyh,dmH sH hyh4mH sH hxgmH sH hmH sH hyh-omH sH hyh-o6mH sH hx}xxxxxxxxxxyy y4yjylywyyyyyzzz z@zAz |+|,|3|4|>|k|l|qfq[h@\]mH sH hxg\]mH sH hyhxg\]mH sH hyh,d\]mH sH hyh1F\]mH sH hyhi \]mH sH hyhn 6\]mH sH hyhn \]mH sH h\]mH sH hyhc\]mH sH hc\]mH sH h\\]mH sH h\]mH sH #l|~||||||}}}}Q~R~T~V~W~c~z~~~~~~~~~~/056 *9 #|hyhd\]mH sH hdhd\]mH sH hd\]mH sH hyh@\]mH sH h@\]mH sH h\]mH sH hyhV\]mH sH hyhn 6\]mH sH hyh,d\]mH sH hyhn \]mH sH 0# +JKMN[iƒsȽ򯡒seWLDLh"mH sH hyhn mH sH hnhd5\mH sH hyhn 5\mH sH hyh`h5\mH sH  hyhn 56\]mH sH hyhn 5\]mH sH h7/hn \]mH sH hyh![\]mH sH hd\]mH sH hyhV\]mH sH hyh,d\]mH sH hyh1F\]mH sH hyhn \]mH sH ą STdžȆچ efhln34׻⻆{{hyhM-mH sH h%lDmH sH hmH sH hPEhqw6mH sH hyhqw6]mH sH hyhAdmH sH hyhqwmH sH  jhyhn H*UmH sH hyhi mH sH hAdmH sH hyhn mH sH hyh,dmH sH 059:;\]yz=Êيڊ@CDEJNOWkϋыҋӋƌ#%&'-01ō̍/9ڹ啹h-vBmH sH hyhl5mH sH hyhqw6]mH sH hyhAdmH sH hyh4mH sH hyhi mH sH hyh,dmH sH hyhM-mH sH hAdmH sH h%lDmH sH hyhqwmH sH 69ڎ9CEIa:<>ABCJMNOPS\ʼʼʦʱʼʼʦʛ՛ʀuguhyh95\mH sH h95\mH sH hqwmH sH hyh4mH sH h%lDmH sH hyhl5mH sH hyh(mH sH hyhmH sH hyhD6]mH sH hyhDmH sH hAdmH sH hyhqwmH sH h-vBmH sH h 0mH sH hPEmH sH %\]bÓϓ?]^_mnz $̣|qf]TM hfh0hsF5mH sH h/5mH sH hyh/mH sH hSDh?2mH sH hh?2mH sH h?2mH sH  h/h?2 h?25hsFmH sH hyh 0mH sH hyhmH sH h-vBmH sH hyh mH sH hyhC+mH sH hyhi mH sH h 0mH sH hyhqwmH sH hyh9mH sH ڕ0Lږ cCbĚ!"3dhgdVdhgd?2$stuߗ.YZcژ'()CX˙2ññãۗیۄyqee]]Yh0hfh06hfh06mH sH hM~mH sH hfh0mHsHh0mH sH hfh0mH sH hfh06mH sH h-vBPJmH nHsH tH#hfh06PJmH nHsH tH hfh0PJmH nHsH tH hfh0hfh0mH sH hfh0]mH sH hfh06]mH sH "2PQ]^`abwĚ!i!4nop 123CYZ[۷۷з۷ۙےۇyqqhfh06hM~PJmH nHsH tHhfh0mHsH hfh0hfh06mH sH #hfh06PJmH nHsH tH hfh0PJmH nHsH tHhM~mH sH hfh0mH sH hfh0mH sH hfh0]mH sH hfh06]mH sH ) !"()*+,./01TX˞̞.ʾtht`XthmH sH h?2mH sH hyh6mH sH hyhmH sH  hyhjhyh0JUhh?20JmHnHu h0Jjh0JUhQjhQUhyh5mH sH hyhRb5mH sH hM~h/5mH sH h0hfh06hM~ hfh0 hfhM~" !,-./ICڦQYZdgdrah]hgdY &`gdY.DpJWĠРѠҠӠՠ֠HIJ&.@Ģ*2ABCDEr|绮绮hmH sH hyhmH sH hyhmHsHhjhyh0JU hyhhyh6mH sH h]mH sH hmH sH h?2mH sH hyhmH sH hyh6]mH sH 7ܣ4Q-Bs¦æĦѦҦڦۦPQRnʧNOYZ[߿hyh5mH sH hQhyhmH sH hmH sH hjhyh0JU hyhh?2mH sH hyh6]mH sH hyhmH sH +Z[dhgdV@P1h:pYBP. A!"#$% Dp6866666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p(8HX`~8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmHsHtHDA D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List 8@8 qwHeader  p#PJ2)`2 qw Page Number^JB@B qw Footnote Text CJPJaJD&`!D qwFootnote ReferenceH*^JD@2D c Balloon TextCJOJQJaJZoAZ cBalloon Text Char CJOJQJ^JaJmHsHtH4+@R4 P Endnote TextNoaN PEndnote Text CharCJaJmHsHtH>*`q> PEndnote ReferenceH*B'`B Comment ReferenceCJaJ<@<  Comment TextCJaJFoF Comment Text Char mHsHtH@j@@ Comment Subject5\RoR Comment Subject Char5\mHsHtH@@ ?>List Paragraph ^6U`6 I Hyperlink >*B*phPK!pO[Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢]yl#!MB;.n̨̽\A1&ҫ QWKvUbOX#&1`RT9<l#$>r `С-;c=1g~'}xPiB$IO1Êk9IcLHY<;*v7'aE\h>=^,*8q;^*4?Wq{nԉogAߤ>8f2*<")QHxK |]Zz)ӁMSm@\&>!7;wP3[EBU`1OC5VD Xa?p S4[NS28;Y[꫙,T1|n;+/ʕj\\,E:! t4.T̡ e1 }; [z^pl@ok0e g@GGHPXNT,مde|*YdT\Y䀰+(T7$ow2缂#G֛ʥ?q NK-/M,WgxFV/FQⷶO&ecx\QLW@H!+{[|{!KAi `cm2iU|Y+ ި [[vxrNE3pmR =Y04,!&0+WC܃@oOS2'Sٮ05$ɤ]pm3Ft GɄ-!y"ӉV . `עv,O.%вKasSƭvMz`3{9+e@eՔLy7W_XtlPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-!pO[Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 -_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!!Z!theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ'( theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]# z $(3,T11=]Zp}[fU" R * - [  C, % )?@A^ !+.//ʖ˖ϖϖpvwz{ĘИјјԘ՘٘٘HHK&((.9@AAĚϚ**AAr|QQSS:?BBDD stžÞǞǞ՞՞!*>GPPoxRRY\E$P D ^`OJQJo( 8^8`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o  p^ `OJQJo(  @ ^ `OJQJo( x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.$P          {`h NTdqwtZ i { n ~ sL4X#U*</QQF9 ;"Y",#( *w*C+r{+"y,.7/ 0D@3U3d3m3W>4FH4w`5l5N596YE8DC;o<<?>>L?^ @a\B-vB{$DSD%lD+EPE1FsFI)J^LMM[VNPQQa?QR?SGXiYZ![y[n$\v\_`y`raraFb f!fg\gcgxg8hhpRj kkIkUlmsmnoXo+pJr-sEys'tSKtqtM uwVw>xz+@>'>@@>f ՜.+,0 hp|  'Lɕ  Kants Changing Cosmopolitanism Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F)>1Table.WordDocumentBSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObj` F Microsoft Word 97-2004 DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8