Kantian Theory in the Age of Polycrisis

The return and increase of warlike territorial conflicts, the intensification of confrontation between global power blocs, the precarious situation of individuals in local or regional disputes, escalating conflicts over economic distributive justice in both the regional and global context, the growing threat posed by the effects of climate change, the dwindling trust in political institutions and scientific research – at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the world is in a state of polycrisis. The section “Kantian Theory in the Age of Polycrisis” sets itself the task of examining selected problem areas of this polycrisis scenario from the perspective of Immanuel Kant’s political thought. The aim is, on the one hand, to examine the extent to which Kant’s thought provides analytical tools for examining the crisis phenomena mentioned individually and in their relationship of mutual influence. On the other hand, the question will be addressed as to whether methods can be developed on the basis of Kant's thinking that can be used productively to solve the situation of polycrisis. Crucial in this context is not least the fact that Kant's groundbreaking writings on ethics, law, and international politics, such as Towards Perpetual Peace (1796) or the Metaphysics of Morals (1797), were written in the last decade of the 18th century and thus in a period of epoch-making upheaval after the French Revolution as well. The fundamental thesis put forward for discussion is therefore that Kant's thinking is essentially a thinking of polycrisis. The panels of the section focus on several specific problem contexts related to the phenomenon of polycrisis, such as economic crisis, threats to international peace and security, climate change, and the decrease of trust into scientific knowledge and political institutions. First, it is necessary to take the insight as starting point that a significant contributing factor, in our current situation of polycrisis, is economic – whether we focus on national or international economies. The grounding philosophical issue in the attempt to address economic crises is the issue of economic justice. Two of the most important accounts of economic justice in the 20th Century, John Rawls's (1971) and Robert Nozick's (1974), seem to draw on Kantian resources, but offer distinct, conflicting and perhaps even contradictory responses: a right-wing (libertarian) position and a leftist liberal stance. Yet, on some accounts, neither Nozick's account nor Rawls's theory actually employs Kant's own theory of justice, yet both (allegedly) draw out the political implications of his ethical theory. (Varden 2016) In the more recent Kantian scholarship, there has been a deliberate attempt to address the balance between these two parts of Kant's practical philosophy (his ethics and his legal philosophy) with a focused study on his 'Doctrine of Right'. (E.g., Byrd and Hruschka 2010) Recent authors have offered conceptions of economic justice which purport to draw on Kant's theory of justice and to part ways with the mainstream Rawlsian and Nozickian interpretations (as well as some other 'Kantian' alternatives, such as luck-egalitarianism). (Ripstein 2009; Forst 2024) The purpose of the respective panel is to examine Kant's answer to the question of economic justice by reflecting on the various available readings and by learning lessons from both the currently praised readings, as well as from those which were dominant in the past. Another problem context concerns the possibility of the establishment of international institutions apt to reach and secure peace. The respective panel is based on the insight that the question of the existence of appropriate international institutions to negotiate and balance the various interests and needs is central to the possibility of dealing with global conflicts and threats. The special focus must be on those international institutions that serve to maintain world peace. In particular, their relationship to the states, who are still the key players in international relations, must be clarified. The recent literature, on war and peace in particular (Huber 2022; Ripstein 2021a, Niesen 2021), relies critically on Kant’s notion of the state, and his understanding of both international and cosmopolitan law. Unclear, however, is what the establishment of peace requires, as part of a Kantian approach. Is a full-blown ‘world federation’ necessary, as some (Kleingeld 2004) argue? Others (Ripstein 2009, p. 227-228) think Kant’s theory lacks ‘the resources to argue for either an executive or a legislative international body.’ A crucial role in this context plays Kant’s theory of social contract, the ongoing relevance of which must be examined. Furthermore, the section aims to consider more deeply Kantian conceptions of justice against the background of the climate crisis. The aim is to analyse cosmopolitan and other Kantian conceptions of global justice in relation to economic institutions and practices, as well as domestic and international law and politics. Since political deliberations in this context are decisively influenced by scientific insights, the section will also address more generally the relation between politics and science. Of peculiar interest in this regard is the observation that Kant’s theory of knowledge and experience is in itself presented in a political and legal language. The legal metaphors in Kant’s thinking have been in the focus of Kant scholarship throughout the history of its reception. So far, two opposing lines of interpretation seem to be facing each other in Kant scholarship. While one sees Kant’s thought as oriented towards the model of property and property acquisition (Seeberg 2006), another reading assumes the thoroughly political nature of Kant’s theoretical writings (O’Neill 1982, Møller 2020). Against the background of this debate, the fundamental question to be raised is, first, to what extent scientific findings and political decision-making processes exhibit structural similarities or represent entirely different phenomena; and second, which insights can be drawn from Kant’s theoretical foundation of the possibility of natural science for current debates on the role of the sciences in the political discourse. This section proposes to investigate the relevance of Kantian theory in the age of polycrisis in six panels (with convenors including Alyssa Bernstein, Allan Gonzalez Estrada, Bertjan Wolthuis, Sorin Baiasu, and Jakob Rendl).