Kant and Trade Unions

Abstract

PHILOSOPHY OF TRADE UNIONRIGHTS□ KANT Kant and Trade Unions I Kant's us what think people about agents to as autonomous understand it rather employees unselfishly ideas treated own means the are in ways used their right than help as to us to understand what itmeans to thinkunselfishly about theways people are used as employees ratherthan treatedas autonomous agents intheir own right NINA POWER, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Roehampton (with thanks to Tom O'Shea) What the have duties relation to morality? that do unions or How should have can to trade we their theorise unions memhave to morality? How can we theorise theduties that unionshavetotheir members (and viceversa)? The philosophical ideasof ImmanuelKant (1724-1804)may seem at first glancerather distant from theday-to-day practical concerns that unionsandtheir members have,but Kant'smoraltheory canhelpus tothink wellnot only about the obligations thatcome froma sharedsetofprinciples butalso,via hispolitical writings, whatitmight meanto defendtheidea thatthe freedom to thinkis dependenton the freedomto communicate publicly.This short essay will examineKant's"dutyethics"before examining whatKanthad to sayaboutparticipationinpublicand political life.WhileKantoperateswithsomewhat strict ideasaboutreason, universalism and moralwill,thereis muchthatis important here in trying to thinkabout how unionscanpractically extend rights totheir members and beyond,and what it means to think unselfishly aboutthewaysin whichpeople are often used and abusedas employees rather than treated as autonomous agentsintheir ownright. Kant'srather austereapproachto morality is based aroundtheidea ofthe"categorical imperative ": herehisidea ofdutyemerges. As implied in thewording, a categorical imperative is one thathas an unshakeablequality aboutit,and is not simplysomething we mighthypothetically choosetodo (ornotdo). Although there aredifferent waysofphrasing thisimperative, thereis ultimately onlyone imperative in Kant'smoral thought: 'Actonlyon thatmaximthrough which you can at the same timewill thatit should becomea universal law'.Whatdoes thismean?If I promise you something I knowI cannotdeliverupon ,forexample,I cannotlogically extrapolatefrom thisfalsepromiseto arguethateverybody should make false promises,not least because thenI wouldn'tbe able to make false promises in thesafety thatthiswould be a rare occurrence and thereforedisguisable. Kant arguesthatforour morality to be rational and viceversa,andthat ifwe cannotuniversalise our behaviour (i.e. wantanyoneelse in ourposition to do the same thing),thenwe are probably doingsomething immoral. Kant's universalism isbasedon a sharednotion of human reason that has perhaps become unfashionable, but nevertheless we can understandthepointthatifyou do something moral, therefollowsa kindof expectation thatothers wouldhavedone,orwilldo,thesamething: we are capable of putting ourselvesand actingin such a way as to understand thingsfromthe pointof view of anotherin an unselfish way. Kantdoesn'tdenythat, as individuals, we have particular interests, but that sometimesthese interests come second to our desireto do the right thing, toactuniversally: when,ina split-second , someonedecidesto jumpintoa pond to rescuea stranger, he orsheis notthinking about personal interests(safety) or about reward (acknowledgement forperforming a heroicact). Rather, thepotential rescuer is acting becausehe or she can and feelstheyshouldact,becauseit is theright thing to do. Thisis whatmoralfreedom meansforKant,and whatmeansforhim that we arenotsimply puppetsblindly operating ina determinisi universe. Whenquestioned, people who haveactedto save others indangerous situations will oftensay 'anyonewould have done thesame,'echoingKant'sunselfish vision ofuniversal morality. Kantisnotparticularly concernedwithconsequences ,butonlywithintention :iftherescuer haddrowned intheattempt to save someone,we would hardlyregardtheir actionas less heroic,as less moral,and on that pointKantseemscorrect. Trade unionmembership How does thisdiscussion ofmoralliferelateto thedutiesandrights boundup withunionmembership ? WhileKantwouldnothaveencountered tradeunionsas we understand themtoday, and was highly sceptical oforganised political activity and suspiciousof secretsocieties,thereis something rather Kantian aboutthefamous trade unionslogan:'an injury toone is an injury toall'. Similarly, Kant'sidea, relatedto thecategorical imperative, thatwe shouldtreatpeople notas means to an end but as ends in themselves ('Alwaystreathumanity, whether in yourown person or thatof another,neversimplyas a meansbutalwaysatthesametimeas an end')is highlycompatiblewith the 1944 Aims and PurposeoftheInternational LabourOrganisation whichincludethe claimthat'Labouris not a commodity'. Capitalist labourrelations ofcourse entail theexactopposite, whichistosaythat one hastomakeone'slabourprecisely a meanstoan end(the'end'herebeingthewage),andthere is an argument we couldtakefrom Kantregarding theunmoral orimmoral nature ofthecurrent system . Unions attempt to protectworkersfrom theirincreasing instrumentalisation in thename of profit, by fighting forbetter working conditions ,shorter hours,better pay,to protect pension rights and so on, and as suchupholdthe dignity and moralcharacter oftheworker as an autonomous being,insofar as thisispossibleina system predicated on thenecessity for themajorityto have to treatthemselves as meansrather thanends.Thefeeling ofhaving todo something we don'twanttodo (workeverharder, orgetup early, for example)isa negative realisation ofour freedom, butan inkling nonetheless. INTERNATIONAL union rights...