Rousseau and Kant on
Man’s Choice: Desire or Reason
By
Joseph A. Casanova
A Senior Essay submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree,
Bachelor of Arts in the
Integral Curriculum of Liberal Arts.
Michael “Mike” Riley, Advisor
Saint Mary’s College of California
September 23, 2014
1
Introduction
After reading Rousseau’s A Discourse on Inequality I was left with a feeling of
wanting a method to go about acting in a way that is moral and right. Rousseau there
describes how the development of man’s faculties made man aware of inequalities
between men. These inequalities grew to include unnatural inequalities as well as natural
ones that put men always in a restless state and pitted them against each other. He claims
the restless state is responsible for all man’s virtue but mostly for his vice. He says that
the “spirit of society” together with these inequalities corrupt the original state of man,
i.e. his innocence and pity and empathy for other men which are not inequalities but
equalities. (Rousseau 136) Rousseau wants man to listen to his natural inclinations apart
from reason and what he has learned from society. He thinks that when man listens to his
natural inclination to pity, he discovers where goodness and sincere empathetic action
begin. This solution still doesn’t present a way in which a man already in society can go
about acting in a way that is virtuous. While Rousseau’s argument is a satisfying one in
regard to how inequalities come about, it does not provide an answer to the question of
how to guide one’s own restless state and desire. How can man intuit what is right and
what will guide man towards this end? Isn’t this the great question in life? Its answer
could show how to become a good man.
Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals provides a possible answer to the question that
Rousseau left with me. The answer for Kant is duty. Kant’s idea of duty resonated with
me and had a greatness about it because it was rooted in reason. Duty for Kant is doing
what is practically necessary which he argues is also the good. Where Rousseau left me
with a feeling of where to look for what is good, and a proposal for why men act in a way
2
that fosters vice, Kant presents a method for acting rightly. Kant takes his idea of duty
and shows what men need to act in accordance with it. I here set out to examine how
Rousseau came to the idea of the restless state of man and then to answer the question of
how then to act rightly by Kant’s notion of duty. I also want to interconnect Kant’s ideas
of the “unsociable sociability” and the development of man’s faculties with Rousseau’s
“restless state” because that will make clearer how duty will best direct the behavior of
man in society and in nature. (Kant 122, Rousseau 133) In this paper I first examine
what Rousseau says about savage and civil man; second I explore Kant and his notion of
Duty; third I compare the ideas of both Rousseau and Kant regarding the restless state
and man’s quarrelsomeness; and last I set out to reconcile Rousseau’s and Kant’s ideas as
well as my own concerning them.
Rousseau
Rousseau came to the idea of restless state of man through the exploration of the
development of man’s faculties and the inequality which arose from them. Rousseau in
his Discourse on Inequality explains the savage and the civil man and the progression
from the savage to the civil man. In order to do this he first starts with the savage man
and describes what it is to be savage and in the state of nature. This state is very
important to Rousseau and helps readers understand the reasons behind civil man’s
actions. Towards the end of the discourse he exclaims, “the restless state is responsible
for what is best and worst among men.” (Rousseau 113) What is this restless state and
how is it responsible for man’s virtue and vice? To answer this question I explore the
nature of the savage man as well as his transformation into civil man.
3
Rousseau starts his discourse off by looking to the savage man and to how he
developed and lived in nature. In the beginning man was not very far from the state that
the other animals were in. He was by himself in nature and acted as other animals would.
Man had his senses and he had the world around him to inform those senses of his
surroundings as well as the things that inhabited them. Rousseau points out “that while
nature alone activates everything in the operations of a beast, man participates in his own
actions in his capacity as a free agent.” (Rousseau 87) He basically is saying that man
and beasts have the same senses that are affected by the same source, nature. Now when
a beast receives information from nature, there is only one way for him to act and this
Rousseau calls instinct. The savage man is in tune with this instinct but in turn he has the
choice to comply with nature or to go against it, to act how he wills. For Rousseau the
farther from nature man gets, the harder it is for him listen to what instinct tells him, and
reason sometimes will get in the way of the natural instinct of pity.
A second difference between men and beasts that he points out is the faculty of
self-improvement. (Rousseau 88) Self-improvement is at the crux of the future
development of man as well as being the source of changes that came about in his
development along the way to the present. The free will fosters the faculty of selfimprovement and the free will is what keeps it in effect. By this I mean that without free
will and the ability to act in a way that nature does not dictate, the state of selfimprovement would not exist. Other animals do not have the faculty of self-improvement
and for this reason they are still animals at the mercy of nature and the information it
imparts to them. They cannot act apart from instinct, they are predictable.
4
Rousseau claims that with the spread of humanity and the differing of climates as
well as foliage and surroundings, men became aware of differences between other things.
He expressed these differences through descriptive words: large, small, strong, weak,
fast, slow. (Rousseau 110) These relationships then gave him the tools to differentiate
between things as well as animals and beings. With these relations and his faculty of
self-improvement came the necessary situations that would convert him to the civil man.
For Rousseau in the state of nature man looks toward himself in all ways. He is in
nature and he concerns himself with only the things that survival and life depend on. He
looks for food and protects himself while sleeping under trees and moving from place to
place. This behavior all comes before the domestic home is introduced and even before
language. Man had at his disposal his cunning and guile as well as his free will and
faculty of self-improvement. Other philosophers such as Hobbes say that man in nature
is prone to violence and fighting. Rousseau has a different attitude and that is that man is
most peaceable in nature because of “the calm of the passions and the ignorance of vice
which prevents them from doing evil”. (Rousseau 99) Man’s peaceable nature and
ignorance of evil seems to bolster the idea that Rousseau presents of pity. He believes
that,
“pity is a natural sentiment which, by moderating in each individual the activity of
self-love, contributes to the mutual preservation of the whole species. It is pity
that carries us without reflection to the aid of those we see suffering; it is pity
which in the state of nature takes the place of laws, morals and virtues, with the
added advantage that no one there is tempted to disobey its gentle voice…”
(Rousseau 101)
Rousseau here makes an important claim about the savage man which is very
curious and of great importance. The pity felt here is one that does not require the
5
capacity for reflection and that is why it is something that is still present in the savage
common man. Rousseau states, “Mandeville well realized that men, despite all their
morality, would never have been any better than monsters if nature had not given them
pity to support reason, but he failed to see that all social virtues which he denies in men
flow from this quality alone.” (Rousseau 100) Here he is claiming that it is through pity
that man has all of the virtues of generosity, mercy, and humility. When man feels this
sense of pity and acts on it to preserve the life of another, the compassion that he feels not
only aims at the other man but in an indirect way it also aims at himself. Savage man
looks at a person suffering and in his mind puts himself in the place of the sufferer. He
sees that they are the same and not that they are different or unequal like his progeny will
soon become. This acknowledgment of sameness that comes about by pity is how man
brings about and realizes his self-love. Is pity or better, empathy, an aspect of man that
actually serves the purposes of species preservation or is this the beginning of man’s fall
to vice?
The capacity for pity is what moves man to take his leap forward and starts his
transformation from savage man to civil man. When savage man gains the ability to
relate things, he is able to look around himself and notice the differences between things.
At the same time he begins to notice, for the first time, others of his race wandering about
the forest. He has no language or contemplative reason but is necessarily happy. It is
only when he looks to others of his species and in turn has pity for them that he makes his
way toward civil man. His realization of his human counterparts then inclines him to
work with others to attain a common goal. In time men learned that if they stick together
in loose knit groups, they could prosper. When man started to relate to his brethren, they
6
all needed a method to convey ideas to each other and this is language. Rousseau claims
that language is how humans developed their reason because humans can only truly
express themselves by words. (Rousseau 95) Language is also directly responsible for
man’s faculty of self-improvement and helps man help others to self-improve. When
man learned how to build huts and was able to defend them, savage or partly savage man
started to live with his mate and his children. Living together brought with it the
sentiments of conjugal and parental love and with them many other problems. (Rousseau
112)
In nature man always looked only to himself, not at anything else. Savage man
only recognized things that would keep him alive. When man starts to pity his fellow
man and comes together in a small community, things change. Man looks to others now
and sees the differences between people for the first time. With this knowledge comes
the feeling of preference. Beauty, strength and skill come into the picture and people
start to realize that they prefer some traits to others. While natural inequality in itself is
harmless, when man wants others to look at him as an individual and concerns himself
with others’ opinions, it becomes dangerous. (Rousseau 114) Rousseau states, “From
those first preferences arose, on the one side, vanity and scorn, on the other, shame and
envy, and the fermentation produced by these new leavens finally produced compounds
fatal to happiness and innocence.” (Rousseau 114) These new feeling clouded man’s
judgment and made it so that his inclinations pointed toward things that didn’t necessarily
matter because they are not essential to the betterment of man.
Rousseau says that it is when one man has to help another man that the problems
that unnatural inequalities create arise. It is also when one man has enough food for two
7
that the lines of equality break and possessions come into being. Like natural inequalities
among men this civil difference of property gave one man power over the other. Men
holding power over each other in many ways leads to the problems that men face when
one man has an object that another man wants or in some cases needs. Rousseau says
that along with the problems that come with the realization of differences, comes the
development of reason through language and the creation of society. “ In instinct alone
man had all he needed for living in the state of nature; in cultivated reason he has what is
necessary only for living in society.”(Rousseau 97) Rousseau states here that man does
not need reason to exist in nature and that it is superfluous. This reason together with the
integration of language and ideas among people is what ignites its power inside man’s
being. Man has always had the capacity for reason but has not had the motivation,
opportunity, or the tools to use it to its full extent. Rousseau thinks that these ideas and
reasoning on them in many ways will bring new and wonderful things. Civil man is
aware of the love that can be had with his family as well as with his countrymen so that
they can exist peacefully together. Together in an ideal situation the realization of the
difference between things is good and is facilitated fully by language. This difference
gives man the capacity to differentiate between good and evil deeds and then his free will
has a choice.
For Rousseau the capacity to differentiate is the greatest difference between civil
man and savage man. The savage man is ignorant of vice as well as the other human
beings around him. Rousseau states, “he felt only his true needs, saw only what he
believed it was necessary to see, and his intelligence made no more progress than his
vanity.” (Rousseau 104) Rousseau shows how the natural man needs only sustenance to
8
survive, so if his stomach is full and he is safe from harm, he is happy. With reason and
the faculty of self-improvement humans as civil men are rewarded the power of skill.
This skill is something that can raise humanity to new heights, but with something so
powerful and with our free will, humanity can create many problems as well as solve
them. The restless state among men is caused by their will and determination to use skill
to the best of their advantage. Hopefully when a civil man acts, he realizes that he is part
of a group of people and should not act harshly toward them. Acting with forethought
and civility unfortunately is not the case with all men.
The principle of self-improvement that Rousseau highlights in his argument
speaks volumes about the nature of man. It is not a coincidence that man’s greatest tool
is that which puts him into so much pain and anguish. It is the choice that civil man
should make to act justly and peacefully toward others in the society which he is a part of
that troubles him so greatly.
Rousseau thinks that civil man should act in a way that is beneficial to all men
and that the choice to act in this way reason fosters. Choice, though, is not always
reasonable and in some ways it seems like Rousseau knows that the “restless state” that
man has kept himself in is another cause of all the bad things that are present in this
world as well as the few good things. (Rousseau 133)
Rousseau presents us with an account of how man might have developed from
savage to civil man. His account takes into mind the possibility of man as a savage
animal who, through his small amount of reason and inclination to pity his fellow man,
would start to see the differences between men. This awareness of difference awakens
within men a desire to be talked about and the restless state. (Rousseau 133) Man would
9
never be the same and this power would push man to his greatest heights of brilliance and
benevolence as well as his most horrific atrocities.
Although Rousseau convinces me how man can let his freewill choose vice and
crimes against himself and his fellow man, he never really shows a way to get from the
present back to man’s natural sense of pity or similarly empathy. Kant has a more
rational approach that helps in this inquiry of how to act in a manner that conforms with
righteousness and goodness.
Kant
What is man’s compass? What can direct the restless state of man to act in the
light of virtue and not the darkness of vice? To Kant reason is our guide to what is moral
and right. He says that it is only when man acts according to duty that he can have true
moral worth. If Rousseau’s restless state of man is guided by reason apart from
inclination and desire, then man will act rightly. The natural dialectic clouds man’s
reason and he has to act with regard to pure reason without this distraction. Man uses the
“natural dialectic, i.e. a disposition, to argue against these strict laws of duty” to follow
desires as an excuse to do what he knows is wrong and without merit. (Kant 163) Kant
says that to act according to duty and what is practical necessary is what is good. First
Kant explores the notion of duty and what it consists of. Then he conceives of a formula
by which to help man act in the light of these duties. This formula is that of imperatives,
and most importantly the Categorical Imperative, which can direct the reason to all other
imperatives of duty. Kant became very important to this inquiry because he gives man a
formula and a ruler in which he can measure what is virtuous and just. Kant
10
painstakingly presents his method, but it is very helpful to have a starting place to
determine the morally correct.
Kant’s Duty
Kant in his work Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals sets out
what right action consists of. To Kant an action derives its moral worth from the action
and not the object of the action or the end it is for. Duty simply put is to do what is
morally right and good. The most important faculty to Kant is man’s reason; man’s
reason enables him to have a free will. Kant says,
“Everything in nature works according to law. Rational beings alone have the
faculty of acting according to the conception of laws, that is according to
principles, i.e. have a will. Since the deduction of actions from principles requires
reason, the will is nothing but practical reason. If reason infallibly determines the
will, then the actions of such a being which are recognized as objectively
necessary are subjectively necessary also, i.e. the will is a faculty to choose that
only which reason independent on inclination recognizes as practically necessary,
i.e. as good.” (Kant 170)
The existence of a will good in itself is one of the most important concepts to Kant and it
is behind all of his assertions in Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals.
That man as a rational creature can choose to act against his instincts is what intrinsically
gives man a will. It is the fact that he can act with the conception of laws and not just
from desire alone. To act from instinct does not require one to use his reason. This is
what the other animals do and they do not have a freewill, because a freewill can decide
to act apart from instinct. Kant argues that the ability to act in such a way that is
objectively necessary shows that a man can act in a way that his nature does not control,
11
and gives him a will that is free. If he just acted from inclination, he would not have a
will or be a being that has free will, because nature would determine his actions and not
him. He would be reacting to stimuli and not taking said stimuli into his mental faculties,
his reason, which makes him able to choose the action. It is the ability to act in the name
of good that gives man a free will.
“Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law.” (Kant 158, Kant’s own
italics) Duty as exactly this requires a good will in itself and not just a will that colors
itself by inclination. To Kant duty is more and greater than a person’s feeling or
inclination to do a good work, i.e. to help the sick or the starving because it pleases one to
do so. It is not enough to achieve the proposed proper good in the end, because the real
moral worth comes from the principle of volition. In order to achieve duty a man must
have a good will in itself. Man must also have a freewill to act out of duty at all, in the
first place.
Kant earlier says,
“A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness
for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition, that
is, it is good in itself, and considered by itself is to be esteemed much higher than
all that can be brought about by it in favor of any inclination, nay, even of the sum
total of all inclinations.” (Kant 152)
A good will is important because when it comes to doing what is right there cannot be
any wiggle room for the wrong thing to happen. Even if one does not complete the action
Kant considers the will good still. He thinks that man must do everything in his power in
order to achieve what duty requires of him, it must not just be “a mere wish”. (Kant 152)
The action must be driven by respect for the law, duty, and nothing else. Inclination to
Kant is always wavering and changing, so man cannot rely upon it in a situation that is
12
dire. “To be beneficent when we can is a duty”(Kant 156). If a person enjoys the act of
giving to the poor and is driven by inclination to help sick and dying children, this to
Kant has no necessary moral worth. The man doing these acts is not doing something
that is wrong, for he is doing a practically necessary thing, but such action does not mean
that he has a will good in itself, because his will can still be working from a selfish view.
Kant states, “It is much harder to make this distinction when the action accords with duty,
and the subject has besides a direct inclination to it.” (Kant 155) Kant encounters a
problem here he cannot easily solve from just looking at a supposed action. Acting in
accordance with duty but not for duty’s sake but for the sake of one’s own sum total of
inclinations, or happiness, has no necessary moral worth. The result of acting in
accordance with duty is not what is important. The importance lies within the motivating
factor in the volition. Sometimes one can act in accordance with duty, not from respect
for the law, but out of a selfish view. Kant calls this selfish view happiness or the sum
total of one’s inclinations.
Acting from inclination is a dangerous thing because a man’s inclination can
change quickly, even if he maintains it would never happen. Where is the worth when
man draws himself to that action by inclination more than by the light of reason? Kant
gives the example of the command from scripture to love your enemy as well as your
neighbor.
“For love, as an affection, cannot be commanded, but beneficence for duty’s sake
may; even though we are not impelled to it by any inclination–nay, are even
repelled by a natural and unconquerable aversion. This is practical love, and not
pathological–a love which is seated in the will, and not in the pretensions of
sense–in principles of action and not of tender sympathy; and it is this love alone
which can be commanded.” (Kant 158)
13
Here is an example that people are very familiar with but because of that familiarity
sometimes take its meaning for granted. To love one’s enemies goes beyond every
instinct. Man’s enemies are his enemies because they took from him something which he
desired such as his freedom, family, or land. The negative actions taken against man
makes him inclined to hate the enemies. The command to love thy enemy goes beyond
all wants. Kant says that God could never command man to love someone in a
pathological way, because sense and desire make up pathological love, which Kant would
say is beyond man’s control. To love practically is what God calls man to do. Kant
defines practicality as rightness. For Kant if all people loved each other, then the
atrocities that happen in the world would have never come about.
“Now an action done from duty must wholly exclude the influence of inclination,
and with it every object of the will, so that nothing remains which can determine
the will except objectively the law, and subjectively pure respect for this practical
law, and consequently the maxim that I should follow this law even to the
thwarting of all my inclinations.” (Kant 159)
Kant explains here one of the greatest definitions and he emphasizes of duty that it is
beyond all inclination. Duty should be so far beyond inclination that the objective goal of
the law only affects the will and is related in the mind to duty by pure respect. The will
that acts according to duty is beyond want and is affected just by reason in itself. Kant
says in the second proposition that,
“That an action done from duty derives its moral worth, not from the purpose
which is to be attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is determined, and
therefore does not depend on the realization of the object of the action, but merely
on the principle of volition by which the action has taken place, without regard to
any object of desire.” (Kant 158)
14
Kant believes that the intention of a person is what matters in respect to any given action.
For example if there are two people who give to the poor the same amount of money to
the same charity, they might look exactly the same to the outside observer. But if one of
those people is doing it to get a tax write off and the other does it because of knowing
that it is a duty, then Kant regards the former not to have true moral worth; instead he
thinks that the latter has it. Basically for Kant it doesn’t matter even if the result of the
action ever comes to fruition. There just needs to be unquestionable effort and a purpose
that reason, and not a desire of the will, drives forward. Man’s desire can easily sway,
even so much so that he tends to use on himself a dialectic that Kant calls natural.
Dialectically he lies to himself and subverts his reason so much so that he is able to
thwart his sense of duty and choose to act in a way that is in accordance with his desire
and not his reason. (Kant 163)
Kant’s Imperatives
In order for the will to be able to act rightly it must use reason to determine what
is practically necessary. There is a certain tool that Kant uses to help instruct the will to
what a person must do to keep his actions in accordance with duty. This coincides with
the idea of an objective principle and is called an imperative. Kant states, “The
conception of an objective principle, in so far as it is obligatory for a will, is called a
command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an Imperative.” (Kant
171) Here Kant is saying that there are objective principles that the will can look to for
guidance. He is saying that this objective or goal of the will is mandatory and a
15
command of reason and not just a suggestion. Kant sets out the command of reason;
called an Imperative, with specific words that he wants man to follow.
There are certain words and phrases that will indicate an imperative. Such as;
“All imperatives are expressed by the word ought [or shall], and thereby indicate the
relation of an objective law of reason to a will, which from its subjective constitution is
not necessarily determined by it (an obligation).” (Kant 171) An imperative by definition
is something that a person ought to do and not something he could maybe do. Kant is
reiterating that by showing ‘ought’ and ‘shall’ as the key words in the formula of an
imperative. In order to be a person that appropriately follows his duties, then he must
have a conception of imperatives. But Imperatives do not all necessarily have to be overarching generalities concerning the greater meaning of life and the universe.
There are a few different types of imperative that can help in understanding the
ones that have to do with man’s duty. But first it is important to differentiate between the
two different ways an imperative can direct a person to right action.
“Now all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. The former
represent the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else
that is willed (or at least which one might possibly will). The categorical
imperative would be that which represented an action as necessary of itself
without reference to another end, i.e. as objectively necessary.” (Kant 172)
Kant is presenting a hypothetical imperative as one that depends on an action of another
as the empirical evidence, for example, required for the intuition to form then responses
appropriate for changing situations. Hypothetical imperatives have a supposed end that
can be different in one case or another, they are not fixed. Now a categorical imperative
is one that has no conditions upon it, it is unquestionable and undeniable by any facts,
16
situations, or excuses. It is objectivity necessary, not subjectively necessary like
hypothetical imperatives.
“, all imperatives are formulae determining an action which is necessary
according to the principle of a good will in some respects. If now the action is
good only as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is
conceived as good as in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle
of a will which of itself conforms reason, then it is categorical.” (Kant 172)
Kant gives the difference between the two commands even more definition. Not only
does the hypothetical imperative deal with other empirical information and upon the
actions of others, it is also for the sake of the end of the action. This means that a
hypothetical imperative aims toward the object of the action and not for the action in and
of itself. Now a categorical imperative deals with a general law that is good because it is
good. It does not need any empirical support or does it rely on something else. It is good
in itself.
It is helpful to see how man uses hypothetical imperatives in his life concerning
the state of society and that of nature. These imperatives attribute themselves to reason
and they are good, as in correct, but do not necessarily have duty attached to them. Kant
gives two kinds of imperatives that command hypothetically and they are called
Technical, those belonging to art also known as rules of skill, and Pragmatic, those
concerning welfare or counsels of prudence. The technical imperatives have to do with
the practical applications of our physical or mental attributes to the world around us.
Kant asserts, “All sciences have a practical part, consisting of problems expressing that
some end is possible for us, and of the imperatives directing how it may be
attained.”(Kant 173) Hypothetical imperatives include the skills of a carpenter or of an
17
acrobat. These skills are truths that have an end that is good (as a means to something
else), are seated in reason, and have a definite end or goal. Kant gives the example of the
directives of a physician to make a patient healthy. He gives equal value in this case for a
poisoner’s skill to ensure certain death. (Kant 173) These are imperatives because they
instruct the person of a profession how to execute his task without failure and to full
effect. There is no concept of morality or of goodness in the sense of duty, only in
correctness and function. Pragmatic imperatives or counsels of prudence concern
themselves with the welfare of the person that is implementing them. They also are
hypothetical and are determined with empirical information. The differences between
rules of skill and that of counsels of prudence are that the end of imperatives of skill is
given, while that of counsels is merely possible. (Kant 176). The reason why counsels
are merely possible is that they rely on a feeling that is impossible to nail down and that
feeling is that of happiness. Counsels of prudence have to do with the welfare of man
and his welfare concerns itself with happiness.
To better understand counsels of prudence Kant explains the role that happiness
takes in this process and why it makes the end of Pragmatic principles uncertain. Kant
calls the condition that is constantly changing happiness,
“To secure one’s own happiness is a duty, at least indirectly; for discontent with
the one’s condition, under a pressure of many anxieties and amidst unsatisfied
wants, might easily become a great temptation to transgression of duty. But here
again, without looking to duty, all men have already the strongest and most
intimate inclination to happiness, because it is just in this idea that all inclinations
are combined in one total.” (Kant 157)
18
The concept of happiness is very important to humans in general, so that to understand
the distinction of being happy and doing one’s duty is essential. Here Kant is reinforcing
the fact that it is man’s duty to make sure he is happy, but only so that he can better act in
accordance with Duties that have true moral worth. He is not saying that it is man’s
purpose to be happy. He is actually warning man that his inclination is already so strong
to attain happiness, that he should be careful of how he goes about filling this void in
himself. This care is important to counsels of prudence, because they relate directly to
the sum of ones inclinations (his happiness) and one’s welfare.
Counsels of prudence are very important and can complicate things a little more
than the straightforward rules of skill. Here Kant describes why they are important,
“Now skill in the choice of means to his own greatest well-being may be called
prudence, in the narrowest sense. And thus the imperative which refers to the
choice of means to one’s own happiness, i.e. the precept of prudence, is still
always hypothetical; the action is not commanded absolutely but only as a means
to another purpose.” (Kant 173)
Kant explains what a precept of prudence is and that it is a way in which man can counsel
himself on the state of his welfare. Man’s well-being is very important and includes, his
health, living conditions, and relationships. Kant puts much emphasis on man’s reason
because in a clear sense he recognizes that man is as much his inclinations. For man to
ignore his desires would be to endanger the sanctity of Duty and of keeping in
accordance with it.
“In short he is unable, on any principle, to determine with certainty what would
make him truly happy; because to do so he would need to be omniscient. We
cannot therefore act on any definite principles to secure happiness, but only on
empirical councils, ex. gr. of regimen, frugality, courtesy, reserve, &c. which
experience teaches us do, on the average, most promote well–being.” (Kant 176)
19
Kant in the above passage calls the precepts of prudence counsels, because they do not
have definite goals and because they deal with the elusive idea of happiness. Counsels of
prudence guide, they do not give definite specific answers. Kant calls happiness not an
ideal of reason, but one of imagination. (Kant 176) Still this seeming trivialization of
happiness should not take away from the importance of it, because man’s inner being can
shape his outer world. What man imagines can strangely enough become a kind of
reality for him and make his life either a living hell or a great paradise. This is why Kant
states that to secure one’s happiness is a duty so that man will not spiral out of control
because he is unhappy.
Both of the types of imperatives that command hypothetically are indispensable to
life and living it in a way that is deserving of praise and respect. Without the rules of
skill or counsels of prudence there is not a framework for man to act on duty. Where
would man be if not for his skill to keep him safe and sheltered? How could man be
productive if he did not take care of himself in relation to himself and others through
counsels of prudence such as frugality and courtesy? These are just a few examples of
ways these imperatives are important and how they give an understanding of imperatives
in general. The opposite case of the hypothetical imperative commands categorically and
that means without question or excuse.
The other type of imperative, called categorical or moral, has to do with free
conduct generally and is more recognizable as law. That is not to say that the Categorical
Imperative is a law that is made by man. Laws in accordance with it are laws that base
themselves on the conception of what is morally right and have to do with a priori
principles and not those based upon the whims of man but upon reason as it transcends
20
man. This imperative is the principle that Kant has been setting the groundwork for:
“There is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely this: Act only on that maxim
whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant
178, Kant’s italics) Kant means this very literally. In order for the world to work
according to the idea of practical necessity, man must act in a way that will make life for
all reasonable beings possible without hindrance. He is asserting that for man to live in a
co-ordinated society and not that of nature and inclination, any action he takes must
follow a universal law. He means by a universal law, not simply things like gravity or
that people need oxygen to breathe, but a sense of duty that is ubiquitous throughout
beings with a will that is free. He goes on to say that man can take all imperatives of
duty from this one Categorical Imperative. (Kant 179) He maintains that it is the
categorical imperative that determines the conception of law and reason, so that it is
independent of all else, good in itself and not dependent on anything empirical. The fact
that it determines the conception of law and reason is why the Categorical Imperative is
the greatest moral imperative. The hypothetical imperatives do not depend on this
morality to work, but Kant shows that duty is necessary to direct them. That is to say, the
categorical imperative can instruct man to use rules of skill in many ways that are good
and just.
Kant explains the categorical imperative through the example of a man that is in
despair of his own life and can not find the strength to go on living. Before committing
the act of suicide he asks himself, according to reason, whether it would be in accordance
with duty to take his own life. One of man’s duties is to preserve and to hold life sacred.
Should he through his sense of self-love and lack of happiness take his own? He realizes
21
that this is his inclination and that to make it a law of nature to destroy life would be
contradictory to life itself. “Now we see at once that a system of nature of which it
should be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose special nature it is to
impel to the improvement of life would contradict itself, and therefore could not exist as a
system of nature,”(Kant 179) Kant is referencing the feeling of self-love. He says that if
someone was sick and wanted to end his suffering, he would be contradicting the whole
concept and duty of love. It would be this man’s duty to go beyond his inclination and to
use reason to choose what is morally right and in most cases practically necessary. What
if the man ended his life right before a cure was found or if he was about to make a
recovery and he or his doctors didn’t realize it? Man should not succumb to his
inclination, Kant says, because inclinations base themselves on criteria that change and to
trust in them can be disadvantageous.
A being that has the power of reason can carry this principle of the categorical
imperative to all moral questions of life. It is similar to the proverb, “do unto others, as
you would have them do to you.” This proverb actually is a hypothetical imperative
because it is the agent that benefits from his good actions. The categorical imperative
should be followed for the sake of itself and not for the sake of anything else. Men of
true moral worth follow the Categorical Imperative for respect of the law and for this
reason Kant holds them in high esteem.
Although Kant says that one does not need to be a scholar or have great
knowledge to intuit the duties and moral worth that it takes to be a good man, most
people have trouble with conforming to the categorical imperative.
22
“Hence there arises a natural dialectic, i.e. a disposition, to argue against these
strict laws of duty and to question their validity, or at least their purity and
strictness; and, if possible, to make them more according with our wishes and
inclinations, that is to say, to corrupt them at their very source, and entirely to
destroy their worth–a thing which even common practical reason cannot
ultimately called good.” (Kant 163)
Kant warns against the nature and the craftiness of the inclinations of man. Here is a case
in which man’s inclinations subvert the will of man and through this subversion of it, can
influence the reason of man. For example when a man knows that it is his duty not
unnecessarily to risk his livelihood by gambling because he has a family, but puts his
reason aside and makes excuses to himself and gambles anyway. Every time the world
outside man tempts his inclination, a natural conflict goes on within him.
Kant has created a method for determining what is right and moral here that is
very helpful as an argument on the question that I was left with by Rousseau. That
question was: how can a human being act in a morally good and just manner? I believe
that Kant has something here that is a starting point to understanding the nature of the
formula that our minds use in order to commit actions in general. Once people
understand in his philosophy how man’s inclination works with his reason in order to do
the right thing, they see helpful truths as well as a few problems. Kant seems to put little
to no trust in man’s inclination left to itself. He sees it can pervert man’s reason, which
directs him to what is right and moral. Kant’s method of determining duty is very close
to perfection and Rousseau’s idea of the restless state of man can help fill out what Kant
lacks. Kant interestingly enough wrote the paper Idea for a History with Cosmopolitan
Intent on a powerful inclination that man has that relates very closely to Rousseau’s
restless state of man. In this essay Kant helps readers to understand the motivation
23
further behind man’s move from the state of nature to that of society and how the
development of his faculties affects his state of being with the world, himself, and his
fellow man.
Kant’s argument in Fundamental Principles for the Metaphysics of Morals is
exceeding complicated, though necessary to follow the Idea for a History with
Cosmopolitan Intent. It helps get the mind in a framework for clarifying what is just. In
the upcoming section the reader can better tell how to use Kant’s methods (Imperatives)
in everyday life and Kant through his exploration of the quarrelsomeness of man explains
why man has difficulties in doing this.
Kant and Rousseau: Man’s Unsociable Sociability and his Restless State
Kant states in his essay, Idea For A History With Cosmopolitan Intent (Kant 117),
that man has an unsociable sociability. At a first look this statement sounds
contradictory, but when examined more closely, it speaks to the erratic and illogical form
that the actions of man take. People have conflict inside themselves and although a man
considers himself a single individual, there are capacities and powers that are at odds
inside him that Kant and Rousseau have both explored in their writings. This isn’t to say
people have multiple personalities, but instead that they have capacities inside themselves
that are responsible for the decision making process of life. These are man’s tools and
when he uses them correctly with prudence can take humankind to the height of greatness
and goodness or on the shadow side can bring out the worst capabilities of man. These
powers are man’s reason, free will, desire, and the restless state of man. Rousseau says in
24
his Discourse on Inequality that the restless state of man is the driving force behind
man’s actions, good or evil. (Rousseau 133)
Both Kant and Rousseau seem to be examining the same question and that is:
what motivates man to act in the way he does? And for Kant: what is the purpose of all
of man’s seemingly random choices? Rousseau discusses how man transforms from
savage to civil man and what happens to his faculties in the process. He sees man’s
perception of inequalities as a perversion of man’s natural desires. Also, Kant speaks of
man’s steps from “barbarism to culture” but in a way that is less judgmental (Kant 123).
Kant sees man’s bloody history as a necessary evil to make man the best he can be. Both
Kant and Rousseau have similar philosophies, so much so that Rousseau’s idea of
inequality and the restless state elucidates Kant’s ideas of unsociable sociability of man
and Rousseau’s own idea of the awakening of man’s desire to be better than his peers.
Kant’s Fourth Proposition is,
“The means which nature employs to accomplish the development of all faculties
is the antagonism of men in society, since this antagonism becomes, in the end,
the cause of a lawful order of his society.” (Kant 122)
Kant says that although man has a free will, nature holds him by laws just like any other
event of nature. (Kant 119) The free will is a complicated issue on its own, but Kant
posits that man is able to choose for himself and has a “flexible purpose”. But with
man’s freedom in mind, nature has in itself a plan for man and has put in him his greatest
gift and his worst curse. Unsociable sociability means that man wants to be by himself
but at the same time he seeks to be part of society. Man has a big ego and he wants
25
things to be how he intends them to be and not how others want them. Although man has
the faculty of reason, which separates him from the animals, he is still an animal in his
own right. Humans need each other to survive, procreate, and as Kant says in his Fourth
Proposition, to thrive. Conversely man wants others to listen to his ideas because he
believes they are the best. He creates for himself an existence where he “expects
resistance everywhere, just as he knows of himself that he is inclined to resist others.”
(Kant 122) This resistance between men is what excites one man’s desire to be better
than the man next to him and to have more than that man just for the sake of greatness
and “vainglory”. (Kant 122)
Rousseau’s restless state of man is useful in understanding Kant and elucidating
and filling up his idea of the antagonism of man in society. He says,
“I would show that this burning desire to be talked about, this yearning for
distinction which keeps us almost always in a restless state is responsible for what
is best and what is worst among men, for our virtues and our vices, for our
sciences and our mistakes, for our conquerors and our philosophers – that is to
say, for a multitude of bad things and very few good things.” (Rousseau 133)
Rousseau’s restless state comes very close to what Kant says in his Fourth Proposition
when he claims that the resistance between men “awakens all the latent forces in man”.
(Kant 122) The restless state, as Rousseau puts it, is this latent force. Kant doesn’t seem
to put a lot of emphasis on this latent force, but it is the driving reason behind what spurs
man to develop his reason and his mind. Kant echoes Rousseau when he says man
overcomes his laziness and “impelled by vainglory, ambition and avarice, he seeks to
achieve a standing among his fellows.” (Kant 122) What Rousseau calls desire to be
26
talked about and Kant calls desire to be better than one’s neighbor is what pushes man to
great heights and at the same time is what makes him evil and vicious.
Rousseau explains the restless state comes from inequalities that arise from man’s
transformation from savage man to civil man. Man in the state of nature has only his
mate and his offspring for companions. He only concerns himself with his safety and the
safety of his family. Natural inequalities are ones that arise from nature and not from
man’s fancies. They are the difference in height, color, look, and weight. Unnatural
inequalities arise when man starts to live in social groups. These inequalities are
differences in class, renown, reputation, and preference. “Such is, in fact, the true cause
of all these differences: the savage lives within himself; social man lives always outside
himself;” (Rousseau 136) It is when man looks outside himself and starts to look at others
and wants others to look at him that problems develop. To repeat, Rousseau says,
“and this was the first step towards inequality and at the same time towards vice.
From those first preferences there arose, on the one side, vanity and scorn, on the
other, shame and envy, and the fermentation produced by these new leavens
finally produced compounds fatal to happiness and innocence.” (Rousseau 114)
The restless state compels man to desire notoriety and standing over others because of
unnatural inequalities.
The tools that man has at his disposal have been inside of him long before he
became civil man. It is because of these powers that he sought refuge in society. There
is a simpler way to see the restlessness of man besides wanting power and renown.
Humans inhabit the realm of being and are for all intents and purposes mortal entities.
Men come into this world, grow into adulthood, and then fade from this life into
27
nonbeing or the eternal. This being said, humans are always wanting. They need food
for fuel and water for thirst as well as air for breath. Mankind is in a constant state of
becoming, never satiated and always needing more. This animalistic form of restlessness
is true for all savage animals. It is a tool of survival and one that nature has endowed
animals with so that they would never be complacent and would always strive for more.
Rousseau’s form of restlessness accounts for Kant’s “latent forces” that spur the
resistance of man versus man and propels him to greater heights. Man from the very
fiber of his physical being desires; this power of restlessness fuels man’s decision-making
abilities and affects those abilities in monumental ways.
The next tool or power that man has is his desire. Rousseau’s state of restlessness
propels desire and does this easily because when man desires something there is no
deliberation. To desire something truly is to want it without conscious thought. Aristotle
says that man desires the good. Nature made man to be a reward-based organism. When
something feels good it often is good for humans. Food tastes pleasurable so that man
desires to eat it. The nutritional value of food should be enough to make him want to eat,
but it is easer to make food taste good than to apply to the reason. If savage man relied
only on reason to compel him to eat, it would complicate the process. Desire is on the
same base level as man’s restlessness. It is instinctual but without it all humans would be
lost.
Divine right or chance has endowed man with the gift of reason, which the Greeks
define as logos. Kant says reason is the faculty that builds up the most resistance that
man has against his fellow man. Yes, a man might compete physically with other men to
assert dominance and gain vainglory over others, but that is in the realm of savage man
28
living in a society and not of civil man living in a society. Man wants others to hold his
ideas in high esteem and the cultural and intellectual realm is where man seems to
compete the most. Reason is very important and without it man would not be where he is
today, but reason isn’t enough to make man the amazing being that he is. What makes
the reason of man so great is that by it he has a free will of his own. Kant takes man’s
free will as somewhat of a given, but then goes on to say that nature is so great that it
coerces man to do things, not simply creates him. Nature puts inside man a desire for
vainglory and the choice to act that impels man to cultivate his reason. Man’s free will
and his ability to reflect on memory make him able to call himself a self and not be a
thing. Nature is setting a perfect stage for the power of the restless state and desire for
vainglory to take a hold on him when man is able to think about himself and others.
With a free will people have the power of choice. A man can look to different
parts of himself for an answer to the question of; what should I do in a given situation?
He can look to his desire, which is the easiest for him to do. Desire is like instinct and no
deliberation is necessary for action. Animals act on instinct and though it can be an
important compass for what is good in life, it can get man in trouble sometimes. On the
other hand man can look to his reason for direction. Reason is what has led man out of
the forest and into society. When taken by itself reason is impartial, so when man learns
from his mistakes, he starts to see that he can avoid mishaps long before they happen, if
he thinks about a given situation before he acts on his desire. Sometimes what man
desires and what is reasonable coincide with each other, but many other times they are at
odds. This is where the need to be “better than” and to have others talk about man comes
in again. The resistance that Kant tells us pushes man to expand his talents and become
29
the perfect version of himself is a flaw inside of man. The resistance that nature forces
upon man through his unsociable sociability can make man use his reason in a way that is
unreasonable. He uses this faculty to harm others and to conquer nations and to find
every and any way to better control others and take advantage. In a state of nature, where
there is no coordinated society, this is what man should do to protect himself and survive.
But society is a constructed institution that makes it safe for the weak and the
downtrodden. The dominant of the race cannot oppress the weak because society gives
them a chance to live and thrive. Society is what reason has made because man can be
strong and fast and powerful with the faculty of reason and not just the muscles and
sinews of the physical body.
Man’s constant struggle is in his continuous reversion to the state of nature,
because he is still an instinctual animal. Without others to teach man how to cultivate his
reason and to harness his desire, he will suffer. Kant says in his Sixth Proposition that,
“Man is an animal who, if he lives among others of his kind, needs a master, for
man certainly misuses his freedom in regards to others of his kind and, even
though as a rational being he desires a law which would provide limits for the
freedom of all, his egotistic animal inclination misguides him into excluding
himself when he can.” (Kant 125)
Kant goes on to say that man needs a master that can break “man’s will and compel him”.
Man’s problem is his sometimes-uncontrollable desire and it is the great resistance that
man feels while competing with his fellow man. The avarice of man makes him want to
overcome others even at the cost of the society that man has collectively brought into
existence around himself. The problem is that people are born into a society and made
part of it without question. They are incapable as infants to reason about an inclination
30
one-way or the other. When they grow into adulthood some individuals might be more
savage at heart. If they would go live in nature, savagery would be all well and good, a
way of survival of the fittest. When they take this philosophy with them into society
though, and live by the rules of nature and desire, they are creating problems and
hardships for the people that are abiding by the rules that govern harmonious living.
Kant says that man, who has no equal on the planet for his reason and quarrelsomeness,
still needs another man to step into this role for him. The need for a master has created
many sufferings over the course of history and created much bloodshed and ruin. Kant
says it will be very late in the development of man, if he is ever going to find a master
among his own kind that will rule justly. Rousseau in his discourse says that the restless
state is responsible for evil in the world. Kant says that man’s unsociable sociability is
the cause of his problems and strife, but also that it inevitably will lead to his salvation.
Rousseau and Kant are both in the same continuum of ideas.
Kant states in his Second Proposition, “In man (as the only rational creature on
earth) those natural predispositions which aim at the use of reason shall be fully
developed in the species, not in the individual.” (Kant 120) With the advent of language
the fate of man changes forever. Here Kant presents a way in which man could transmit
his enlightenment to others. Now a man has a way in which the ideas that his brain
formulates can be transmitted to another brain with enough clarity that the recipient can
then build upon those ideas. Without this principle man could never come close to
reaching his rational end. Only through many generations will man reach his potential.
Human potential must be obtained through cooperation and collaboration. When
scientists formulate new theorems they want and need their ideas to be right. They fight
31
for them and are adamant to protect their validity. Only when other scientists prove them
wrong and their spirit breaks can they take the new theorem and create a revised one of
their own. This could have never happened without the other scientist’s idea.
In His Third Proposition Kant says, “He must namely do it not led by instinct or
provided and instructed by innate knowledge; but rather he must produce all this out of
himself.” (Kant 121) Man has come to discover that he can better survive by profiting by
his mind and reason and not by his brawn. Nature did not make man formidable like the
wolf or the bear. Man uses everything he has to be better than himself and it is when man
sees outside himself things which can help him that he thrives. Nature has given man a
will that is free and with his faculty of self-improvement and his desire to be greater than
the others around him he can attain greatness. Kant believes that this journey that man
must make is not going to be an easy one. He says that nature is more concerned with
man’s rational self-esteem than his well-being. (Kant 122) Why does man have to suffer
so much so that he can achieve the end of his rational nature? Is it worth it? These
questions are of very little use because striving to achieve the end of his rational nature is
how man has developed and will continue to develop.
In the Fourth Proposition Kant says,
“Man would not fill the vacuum of creation as regards his end, rational nature.
Thanks are due to his quarrelsomeness, his enviously competitive vanity, and for
his insatiable desire to possess and rule, for without them all the excellent natural
faculties of mankind would forever remain undeveloped.” (Kant 123)
The process of cultivating man’s reason is also what Rousseau says is the product of the
restless state. Kant expresses this idea with a feeling that the pain and suffering man goes
32
through is absolutely necessary. Rousseau says that the restless state has a great
capability but it has a shadow side that perverts man’s natural desires from when he is in
a state of nature. Kant thinks the goal of nature is to put this unsociable sociability into
man. Kant says man wants concord but nature discord. This discord will show man what
he is made of and “Thus a pathologically enforced co-ordination of society finally
transforms it into a moral whole.” (Kant 123) The moral whole of society is the most
exciting part of Kant’s idea that nature pushes man to suffer so he can know by suffering.
Nature has man feel a fire in his soul that eventually will teach him through trial and error
what works and what is in the end moral and right. It is when he develops his reason
through his quarrelsome nature and then pulls himself away from that desire and creates
“a perfectly just civil constitution” that he will be complete. (Kant 124 Prop 5)
Reconciling Kant’s and Rousseau’s Ideas with Ideas of My Own
At the beginning of this paper I set out to answer a question that I was left with
after reading Rousseau’s work A Discourse on Inequality. That question was: how to
control the restless state so as to choose a life of virtue and not of vice? In order to
answer this question I explored Kant and delved deeper into the notion of Rousseau’s
savage and civil man. I found answers that helped deepen my understanding but also
some that I believe need some further framing to best help answer my original question.
Next the paper will continue to address these questions further by combing Rousseau’s
and Kant’s ideas as well as my own.
Rousseau supplies society with an answer for why man is constantly looking to
others for approval. He says it is the burning desire to be talked about or the restless
33
state. This as I have shown gets man in trouble by turning him away from his empathetic
origins and turning him into a social creature that can be cruel and self-centered. Kant
then provides an answer to this problem of controlling man’s restless state by positing the
idea of duty and the categorical imperative.
Kant believes that man cannot trust his instincts and that they pervert and
barbarize his nature. This is the opposite of what Rousseau thinks and his notion is more
in accordance with what I think. If my goal in this inquiry is to better understand the
nature of man, to use the ideas of both Kant and Rousseau on how to act rightly, there
needs to be some deliberation on and melding of their ideas. Rousseau provides insight
that is invaluable about the development of man and of man’s transition from nature to
society and the part the restless state has to play within the transition. Rousseau imbues
the importance of desire into his work. Desire at its base is a kind of instinct, as we have
explored before. For Rousseau the intellect gets in the way of man’s natural instinct to
pity other human beings. This pity in a sense is not simply seeing the inequalities or
differences in others, but in seeing the sameness of themselves in their fellow human
beings at the same time. Kant looks at the world through a lens of reason untouched by
inclination and instincts. Though some feeling like pathological love and practical love
can be attributed to desire and reason, does that mean that the pathological love of one’s
family does not derive true moral worth? Of course it can be said that to love one’s
family is a duty through practical love, but don’t humans also love their family by
instinct? Should it be said that to gain joy and meaning from the love of family has no
moral worth because it is not through the principle of volition only? I believe Rousseau
does not think that this should be the case.
34
Why does Kant equate moral worth, true moral worth as he says, with going
against one’s instinct totally? It makes sense that to do one’s duty while desiring the
opposite deserves merit and esteem. A conflict between duty and desire is difficult. For
Kant an individual has controversy and discord within his being. This state is most
unlikely to be envied by another person. It should be the man whose desire is inline with
his reason and also with duty that against Kant I would argue is also of true moral worth.
I think he would be and be said to be a truly great person that has a will good in itself as
well as a desire that is great as well. This desire would be the better part of restlessness
that Rousseau says is the reason for man’s virtue.
The better part of restlessness here mentioned I more aptly call intrinsic
restlessness. Rousseau focuses on the ‘burning desire to be talked about’ as being the
restless state. I think it’s helpful to expand that idea. It seems to me that there is intrinsic
restlessness and extrinsic restlessness. I came to this idea through hearing of the
psychological terms of intrinsic and extrinsic happiness or values. If happiness is like
Kant says and just the sum of all inclinations, then it makes sense that these two terms are
interchangeable. Intrinsic happiness has to do with the value and desire for personal
skills, personal knowledge, family, friends, and community. All of these create a lasting
happiness that is more fulfilling and nurturing and puts man in better accordance with
duty. Extrinsic happiness comes through your appearance, money, possessions, and
reputation. I would say that extrinsic restlessness is what Rousseau was describing. I do
not think that extrinsic values or desires are necessarily negative, because all people need
those desires to live a normal life. It is just that extrinsic desires and restlessness are
powerful and enticing. A person could desire to make the most money possible so that he
35
could give it away to charity because it is a duty to be beneficent to others. This extrinsic
desire would be in accordance with virtue. At the same time someone might have the
same desire but fuels himself by greed, and that individual does whatever he can to line
his pockets with money. I think to the right type of person intrinsic restlessness or desire
can be just as motivating in a positive or negative way. A virtuous person’s intrinsic
restlessness can consist with a desire for family and for reputation and acceptance. Also
intrinsic qualities include the desire for knowledge and personal skill. I believe that the
pursuit of knowledge is one of the greatest pulls in humanity’s collective heart and will.
Humans have always wanted to know more. Man was awestruck by creation and since
he learned that he could create as well he has never stopped. Humans created tools,
farming, language, and everything that transitioned them from savage to civil man. To be
human is to create and sometimes that creation can be for the supreme good of humanity
or for the detriment of it.
Again, Rousseau says that “the savage lives within himself; social man lives
always outside himself;” (Rousseau 136) This holds very true to the two types of
restlessness of man. The savage man had a drive to flex his reason and create tools and
language so that he could better mingle with his own kind. With this use of reason he
then started to see inequalities and extrinsic desires, and so problems started to arise
within his communities. I believe that it is important to describe how the restless state
can transcend Rousseau’s focus on it, so that it can better describe all of man’s
motivations for action, whether they be virtuous or full of vice.
Some men desire to be virtuous and this is respectable, but to Kant all men must
choose with their freewill to do their duty through pure practical reason without the
36
influence of inclination at all. This is where I disagree with Kant. I agree with his
assertions of the importance of duty and that one has to ascribe maxims and imperatives
to one’s life to act rightly and his assertions of the importance of the principle of volition.
I even understand where he comes from with the warnings he gives about man’s natural
dialectic and how his desires and inclination towards preserving his happiness can
subvert his actions away from duty. But I do not agree with his judgment of a man that
truly does his duty only through respect for the law and duty’s sake, for I think that at the
same time one can desire dutiful action with his whole being. This is where I want to
meld Kant’s idea with that of Rousseau’s, so that a man can desire what is virtuous and
still be a man of moral worth. I would argue further that such a person would be greater
than the man that acts dutifully in spite of discord in his heart. I see how Kant might
argue it is more arduous for the man who desires the opposite of duty to do what is right,
but why should the man whose will is free to act, meaning is encumbered by his desire or
reason, not be as deserving of true moral worth?
It is very curious that both Kant and Rousseau have such similar ideas of
restlessness and of the quarrelsomeness of man, but are so different in their belief of
where the fault of man’s brutal nature comes from. Rousseau holds true to the fact that
savage man was much more connected and concerned with other humans around him.
His natural inclination without reflection to his reason was that of pity towards his fellow
man. (Rousseau 100) Rousseau believed that only through man’s development of reason
did he start to lose this sense and become indoctrinated with the idea of wealth and
unnatural inequalities and so let vice tempt his inclinations. Reason and the development
of it is what is the perpetrator of evil for Rousseau. For Kant it seems to be the opposite.
37
Reason apart from inclination is what determines duty and the categorical imperative.
Kant believes that his quarrelsomeness, like Rousseau’s restlessness, spurs man forward
and makes him want to be better than his brethren. He calls it vainglory, a power which
is man’s blessing as well as man’s darkest curse and burden. For Kant when man loses
sight of his reason and gives into his inclination, that is when evil and tyranny can creep
into the world. For Rousseau evil and vice connect themselves to desire as well in the
‘burning desire to be talked about’. But a man instead of listening to the inclination to
pity, can turn away from it and let preference and jealousy cloud his eyes. His desires,
like greed and envy, that were brought about by the unnatural inequalities pervade his
existence. It is interesting that Kant with all his talk of reason and how it directs man and
gives him a will that is free, can rely on the desire of vainglory and avarice to bolster
man’s reason so that he will eventually learn to suppress desire and inclination to create a
great society. So I say in the end that desire is what helps reason reach its end in nature
and makes man create a great and practically good society.
Conclusion
Both Kant and Rousseau have ideas that can be polarizing but I believe are made
stronger when one takes them into account together. In the end what I have to make
sense of is how their arguments will help me to be a better man and to live an examined
life. I do not think that as human beings we should forget our inclinations and wholly
latch ourselves to reason. I also do not think that it would have been better to stay in the
state of nature and never to have unnatural inequalities. It seems to me that the best
course of action is to try to adopt the morally greatest parts of savage man and those of
38
civil man. I think through the unity of a truly good will directed by reason and a truly
good desire is what will produce a human being that is worthwhile.
39
Works Cited
Rousseau, J., & Cranston, M. (1984). A Discourse on Inequality. Harmondsworth,
Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Kant, I., & Wood, A. (2001). “Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent”. In
Basic writings of Kant (2001 Modern Library pbk. ed.). New York: Modern Library.
Kant, I., & Wood, A. (2001). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. In
Basic writings of Kant (2001 Modern Library pbk. ed.). New York: Modern Library.
40