This was left to my complete discretion. Therefore, in the next development of the doctrine of political individualism, we see a strengthening of the formal legal principle; it is accomplished with the help of German philosophy, which late joined the educational Anglo-American and French movement. It was Kant’s philosopher of law who accepted and assimilated the ideological results of this movement, limiting them to some old, traditional views, especially in the political part, which did not contribute to the integrity of his theory in content; but for this the German mind gave them a strict and methodical external formulation.
The significance of Kant for the political-individualist direction lies in his deep penetration into the legal foundations of the dissolved political problem. Such a basis in revolutionary doctrine was the understanding of natural rights assigned to the individual. Kant went deeper. He posed the question not about what an individual right is, but what “right” is, as one of the social imperatives and what is its relationship to other categories of social imperatives. He made an attempt to connect the question of the very essence of the law of human coexistence with the solution of the problem of the forms of this coexistence.
Kant begins with the inner stimulus of the personality, obliging it to submit to one or another
1) Ge Mearz eg ESHMep. Ersoeg Tvey. Mearvuzzsie Ap!apozotypoe eg Whole $1еВе. Epeilie sh @1e Vesrieite. $ 3.\UAZ 15 Weight? V. 30. (Published by Kisvshap). 16 Wei @. U.
g would. m VUI rye vos E
from social imperatives. At the same time, Kant made an attempt to define and differentiate the range and degree of these imperatives, which was extremely important for clarifying the position occupied by the person subordinate to them.
We have already encountered all the terms to which Kant gives a philosophical interpretation: morality, right, law, society (D), state, but without the exact one. defining them and without penetrating into their philosophical foundations. Let us recall that the right of the individual, as understood by the revolutionary doctrine, was placed above the law and the state. Being inalienable, it was retained by individuals and states; Moreover, the goal of the state was to guarantee this right, to become its guardian (roig zoosatae). And the right itself, i.e., the freedoms and equality of the individual, was given only a moral precondition in the rule: “don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you” (see French decree of 1793). Since freedom is the opportunity to do everything without harming another, and equality is recognizing for each individual the same conditions of existence and activity along with every other individual, then, obviously, a certain system of domination was formed around the individual in the state, where he received the opportunity to demonstrate his power and abilities, regardless of the very content of his activity. Moreover, the rule not to harm another concerned, of course, direct, so to speak, individual harm, and not communal harm. In my room there is a somewhat magnificent mirror, where I look without, apparently, causing harm to anyone. It doesn’t matter to me that their production with the help of mercury preparations has already harmed not a single human life. In the spirit of social necessity, the revolutionary doctrine does not make such conclusions.
1) Kant considers the struggle of social forces to be the motivator of development.
dzhalala, although she assigned some serious responsibilities to the state.
Kant, following the rational path "), confirmed with his definitions such a formal view, extending it to the very concept of law. Viewed from this point of view, his teaching on law has the individualistic character of legal egoism; the character of rigoristic formalism, also characteristic of his ethical theory. But on the other hand, Kant’s individualism contains such lofty features, imbued with a purely stoic humanity that he distances himself from selfishness.