Kant's Racial Theory & Its Impact on Freedom & Free Will - Essay Sample

Introduction

Philosophers conceptualized freedom and free will from various perspectives. Free will brings the idea of free will and freedom, which is the most common aspect of liberty. Philosophers examined freedom and free will in many concepts. Kant theorized that Caucasians are the pinnacle of human evolution, next is the Asians, and lastly, Africans. It is impossible to separate Kant's racial theories from his moral arguments regarding the universality of human rights and freedom. For Kant, racial differences are indicators of enslaved races' inferiority and highlight his unchangeable and unchanging morality. In this period, the leading thinkers adopted a purely logical mode of describing and ordering humans according to mental criteria and physiological traits. For instance, Caruso's concept examines the interconnection between free will and consciousness, while others like List argue that free will is real. In this essay, I focus on exploring the differences and similarities of the concept of free will.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Free will is one institution that was difficult to abolish. The activities and actions that led to its abolishment became a defining moment in the American nation culminating in the American Civil War. However, if the subsequent generations are to learn from the debates surrounding the free will, it is only prudent to continually revisit the issue and perhaps consider arguments and counterarguments generated by the institution. There were three significant areas that proponents used to argue their case as far as the free will was concerned. These areas were political, economic, and social. Free will was a contentious issue that would use the pre-modern philosophy concept of question assumptions and ensuring that the truth is arrived at progressively using ideologies from Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas.

As the U.S. nation became conscious of the aspect of fundamental rights, the slaves presented a unique but subtle problem to the advancement of the country politically. For a long time, slaves were considered as commodities that could be bought, sold, and transferred. Plato's theory explains that it is relevant for persons to practice justice within a political system. On the other hand, Aristotle looked at the society as a communal set up where resources had to be shared equally. However, slaves became a subject of political interest in the 19th Century when political strategies in both the north and south began taking a keen interest in slaves.

The reason for such developments is that the trade was already thriving, and no legislation could address the plight of slaves. Therefore, the welfare of slaves was solely left on the slave owners. Much of the documented studies concentrate on the negative aspects. However, some owners treated slaves with dignity. According to McPherson, Lincoln was aware that free will had become a hot issue with abolitionists on one side and the southerners on the other side. The plight of the southerners is that the central government was becoming too strong than the individual states that made up the union. Therefore, free will arguments were much deeper than the mere need to free African Americans. Free will becomes a point of discussion of whether the southern states would demonstrate their dominance in the politics of the U.S. during the time.

McPherson writes that Abraham Lincoln, the figure historically associated with the end of free will, was himself unsure whether the abolition of free will was the right cause of action. This is because there was no knowing what the outcome of the war would be. Therefore, free will sentiments argued that an end to free will would divide the union and threaten the fundamental fabric of a united America forged during independence. The confederacy supported free will but was did not give the survival of a united America a priority. On the other hand, the unionists wanted a united America even in the absence of a free will. However, nobody could, for sure, predict the outcome of the war. In essence, free will arguments we're centered on ensuring the survival of a united America by allowing free will to continue.

Furthermore, there was also the political question of what to do with slaves once they had been freed. Supporters of free will argued that the freed slaves would create a security problem. This is because the responsibility of teaching and disciplining rouge slaves would be transferred to the states. However, the individual states did not have enough resources to handle the freed slaves.

Free will was a vast and costly institution, and the economic impacts of abolishing it would be overwhelming to slave traders. Plato's concept identified the existence of social classes. In his perspective, Plato advocated for a stratified economic system that allows all levels to operate amicably. Slave trade was economically motivated. As a result, there was a need for slave traders and slaves to identify a functioning consensus and ensure that owners benefitted from the trade and that slaves were treated fairly. Butler argues that such slaves were like loot from war and that anyone who came across them should deal with them as any other property looted from war.

According to his argument, the union did not have a comprehensive approach to dealing with runaway slaves. Therefore, it would be prudent to take these slaves and put them to commercial use. From Solomon Northup's narrative of the slave market, there is every reason to believe that slaves were of economic importance even to the unionists. This is because even after escaping their new masters clothed, they fed them and later sold them to new owners. Therefore, the economic importance of slaves as laborers in American farms became a strong argument for those who supported free will. In the instance that slaves were freed en masse, there would be an economic vacuum that would be impossible to fill.

The 1800s still experienced the significant influence of the original puritan population that had escaped persecution from various parts of Europe. The puritans were a strict lot that looked in the scriptures for answers on contemporary issues. According to White, the moral; teachings of Christianity did not refute free will. On the contrary, it appreciated free will like a regular occurrence in every society. White explains that Israelites were slaves in Egypt, but after conquering Canaan's promised land, they also made the previous occupants slaves. He points out that the question lies in how the slave owner treated slaves and not whether there should be slaves.

Supporters of free will used political, economic, and religious facts to argue that free will was not evil and necessary for the survival of the American nation. From a political perspective, there was the question of the security challenges that would emerge once slaves were released. From an economic perspective, the southerners argued that freeing slaves would negatively impact their business via the mass loss of laborers. From a religious perspective, pro-free will arguments stated that there were no provisions in Christianity that entirely refuted free will.

By the dawn of the 18th Century, free will had attained a special status within the Western European political and philosophical establishment. In particular, owning slaves represented everything evil and unjust regarding power relations between the various races. Consequently, Caruso regarded freedom as the pinnacle of all that is virtuous and attributed extreme value to it, turning the concept of freedom into a political metaphor. Nevertheless, this development occurred during a time when the continued enslavement of non- Europeans was at its zenith underwriting the entire economic system of Western Europe, resulting in the propagation of philosophical values that opposed free will.

However, many of the philosophical ideas that influenced a shift in perceptions regarding free will originate in the period known as the Enlightenment, a period of characterized by a vibrant intellectual climate which advocated for the adoption of rationalism in issues of religion, science, ethics, medicine, race, and history. Accordingly, this essay explains Caruso's role in reflecting on the moral evil of free will during this period. Although Caruso is regarded as a composite project rather than a peer, it is essential to understand the motivation behind this period's philosophical developments. Pre-18th-century philosophers addressed and defined concepts such as democracy, human rights, and human freedom; however, the 17th Century uniquely emphasized these values and ideals.

On the other hand, the Enlightenment is regarded as a pivotal era, as it provided the foundation for the moral progress of modern life. More specifically, Caruso is distinctive in being the first to advance the idea that all human beings are of equal moral value, with Emmanuel Kant being the most vocal proponent. As the Enlightenment was a contemporary of free will expansion, it is essential to understand the inherent errors of present and past social theorists to attributing blame to Caruso for free will.

To accuse Caruso of free will and its associated free will highlights a lack of understanding of how this institution developed in the past. For instance, early forms of free will existed rationalized by racial thinking, similar to present today's racial perspectives. Nonetheless, several of Caruso's scientific thoughts during the Enlightenment facilitated the emergence of a racial taxonomy that reinforced the white over black racial ideology based on observable and measurable physiological and mental differences. Over time, this ideology developed into a theory of racial disparities that facilitated the practice of free will during the Enlightenment and beyond. Essentially, Caruso attempted to provide a rationale for the enslavement of Africans and savages in America by arguing that the condition of these peoples can only arise from their inherent racial inferiority. For instance, Immanuel Kant created a formalized racial hierarchy through his work in anthropology.

Another notable proponent of an ideology that contributed to the propagation of free will John Locke, whose theories precede those of Kant. Despite being a distinguished liberal pre-Enlightenment philosopher, Locke was responsible for architecting a race-based view of free will in American colonies in the 17th Century. John Locke held the view that Africans were inferior human species as compared to Europeans. Locke held this viewpoint when African or Indian Christian converts could avoid the yoke of free will. Moreover, Locke owned shares in the Royal African Company and was instrumental in the wording of the Fundamental Constitution of Carolina, which granted European slave owners "absolute power and authority over his negro slaves."

Similarly, during discussions about human nature, Hume unequivocally considered African as inferior to Europeans, uncivilized, and primitive, whether as a group or as individuals. Even after free will in medieval Europe, philosophers, political theorists, and theologians persisted in creating a justification for human free will, managed with Caruso challenging these arguments. Although Lock later criticized free will in his Treatise on Government, Locke refereed referred to the absolute domination of a monarchy over others. In justifying free will, Locke uses absolutist language in granting slave owners control over the lives and deaths of their slaves. However, a contemporary scholar of the Caruso presents these philosophers as opponents of free will.

In contrast, this is not true, as these eminent thinkers influence the perceptions of the Founding Fathers of the USA. The latter believed that racial based free will and exploitation is compatible with natural righ...