Contradiction in Kant’s Hierarchical Racism and Egalitarian Humanism

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), a prominent and influential German Enlightenment philosopher, believes that white people are superior to non-white people. He divides mankind into four groups: "white" (Europeans), "yellow" (Asians), "black" (Africans), and "red" (American Indians). Kant claims that other races, except the white race, are unable to acquire moral maturity due to a lack of talent (a gift of nature). He argues that whites themselves have all the motivation and talents, while blacks can receive education, but only as slaves. Native Americans cannot receive an education, they don't care about anything, they are lazy. This contradicts his egalitarian humanism. He proposes the belief in universal democracy and categorical moral imperative, where he argues that everyone should be seen and treated as “ends”, not as means to an end. One should also act as one would want all other people to act towards him or her, and according to the maxim one would wish the action to be a universal law. This paper adopts the laws of thought, that is, the principle of identity, the principle of non-contradiction, and the principle of excluded middle to interrogate and evaluate the consistent tenability of Kantian hierarchical racism on one side and egalitarian humanism, espoused in categorical imperative, on the other side. The conclusion is that there is a contradiction.