Immanuel Kant & Justice

Aristotle, a philosopher, once said: At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. Justice is a term that is quite frequently used and preached in the lives of humans as individuals and also as societies and nations. But, it becomes a cucumbersome process when it comes to actually defining what this concept is all about. Justice is an aggregate of those conditions under which the will of one person is conjoined with the will of another in accordance with a universal law of freedom (Kant & Ladd, 1999)1. Immanuel Kant, a Germen philosopher, dazzled the foundations of western philosophy by his ideals in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. Philosophy and anthropology were the main areas of his research. His findings had worked and are still working as a thoughtful insight for the upcoming researchers. Kant has emphasized much on the concept of justice. This paper investigates the Kants concept of justice but with a different angle. This writing will target Kants theory of punishment which according to Kant serves as the basics for a just society. Justice means being fair or just. It is a concept of moral righteousness based on the principles of equality and ethics and is hooked with the term punishment, if there is a breach of stated ethics. Justice and punishment are interrelated. For justice to prevail in a society punishment is an essential concept for the violators of justice. Punishment is the infliction or imposition of penalty as retribution for an offence. According to Kant, retribution is the basis for punishment. Retribution is the pay back or more appropriately, it is a fairly deserved penalty. Kant is of the view that wrong doers are not just deserved to be punished, but they, in fact, must be punished. One, who murders, deserves to die. So, in simple words, death penalty is retribution. Kent has stressed on the idea of justice through the retributive theory of punishment. The simple logic behind Kants idea is the fact that it is unfair to punish people for utilitarian reasons. Now the question is what are utilitarian reasons? Utilitarian justice means looking at the overall welfare of all the relevant individuals. Punishment is a bad treatment but punishing for maximization of welfare is a justified argument. It is justified to punish in order to bring about a positive change in society, regardless of the fact whether the severity of punishment matches the crime or not. Sometimes a soft tilted punishment for a severe crime can bring welfare changes for whole society. Kant opposes this idea and based his concept of justice on retribution, pay back or in other words he believes on the principle of an eye for an eye. He regards punishment as a matter of justice. He is of the view that if guilty is not punished, justice is not done. Punishment must always be in response to guilt and if the guilty is not punished the two basics of law that is equality and justice will not be entertained. Kants theory of punishment focuses on the principle of equality that is the pain inflicted on the criminals should be equal to the pain inflicted on the victim. He is of the view that if a criminal is punished in order to protect the society or set an example (utilitarian justice), it is wrong. There are two ways of looking at this concept of Kant. One school of thought of suggests that it is appropriate and fair to adopt a retributive approach in the society in order to prevail justice because if there is no justice there is, in fact, no society. But, there is another school of thought related to this concept which supports the utilitarian approach as opposed to Kants approach. The ultimate goal of justice is to make a better society. Sometimes punishment may also create chaos and unrest in society, though justice is done. Secondly, people need to clearly
1

Kant, I., & Ladd, J. (1999). Metaphysical elements of justice: part i of the metaphysics of morals. (2, revised ed., p. 30). Hackett Publishing.

Immanuel Kant & Justice

understand the concept of retribution because they may intermingle the two terms that is revenge and retribution, which can be extremely critical for the sound health of a society. It is now left at the discretion of the reader to decide for him/herself the approach with which he /she can relate.