Познание, мораль и политика = Cognition, morality and policy. Учебное пособие

at least one employee got fired. Gandhi also opposed violence with nonviolent resistance solidarity based on the inner spiritual and moral rightness. He was imprisoned for a long time, but the movement was growing, and the authorities had to release him. When cavalry was sent to confront the nonviolent resistance file, people lay down on the ground, and the horses stopped. World public opinion rose to defend Gandhi’s movement. Albert Einstein, Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, and many other wellknown scientists and public figures supported the Hindus in South Africa. The authorities had to give up and cancel the most offensive racist laws in 1914. One of the British officials even told Gandhi, «Sometimes I wish you could resort to violence. Then we would know at once how to deal with you». Yet Gandhi did not give that chance to the racist government. His position and action were immaculate from the moral point of view. The two decades of Gandhi’s work in South Africa culminated in the victory of Satyagraha, non-violent mass movement; after that, he returned to India, where British colonizers condemned the population to poverty, draining all the resources and destroying the tradition.

In 1885, the representatives of Hindu intellectuals and the national bourgeoisie created the party named the Indian National Congress, whose purpose was attaining independence. Gandhi, who returned to India in 1915, inspired the party with some new ideas. He pointed out, «It is not the political independence of the Indian state, but it is the revival of the spiritual independence of the people of India. The mighty power of the spirit hidden in the Indian culture will enable us to find our own path in history and find unity and equality with other nations. The people of India must become independent in their hearts, and the external oppression will be powerless then. You can win your independence by weapons for a while, but it is impossible to make yourself or the others free by weapons. The British did not take over India – we gave it to them ourselves. They stay in India not because of its strength, but because we keep them here». Winston Churchill re-

132

marked, «Sooner or later we will have to crush Gandhi, the Indian National Congress, and all the things they are defending».

Gandhi developed a comprehensive program of noncooperation with the colonialists by boycotting foreign goods, defying illegitimate laws, etc. All the actions were based on the full openness and transparency, and the opposing party was being warned of them. The participants of the movement did not have to hate the enemy; all they had to do was reach the goal. At the same time, everyone who took the path of disobedience was to be ready for death in his mind. For instance, Gandhi went on hunger strike to stop the Hindu-Muslim enmity. His authority was so great that the massacres ceased.

Since Gandhi’s actions were based on spirituality generating morality, his behavior was unpredictable. His sincerity and sacrifice disarmed his opponents. For example, when accused of demise of the victims incurred as a result of satyagraha, he refused to defend himself, admitting his guilt for the bloodshed. He claimed, «Non-violence implies voluntary submission to punishment for non-collaboration with evil». However, he considered the existing laws to be illegitimate, thus recognizing his own right to resist them. He became known as Mahatma, the «Great Soul». He was a small and skinny man with protruding ears, wrapped in homespun cloth, with a childlike smile on his face. Yet he had other enemies than colonizers. They were both Hindu and Muslim fanatics, and prosperous landowners worried about their income. After the departure of the British, the «hatred bomb» prepared by them as a result of their divide et impera policy, the deliberately generated discord among Muslims and Hindus, went off. Gandhi went on hunger strike again, and the massacre in Delhi stopped – it was the last miracle of his policy. On January 30, 1948, he was shot by a Hindu fanatic.

Some view Gandhi as a prophet, while some regard him as a utopian dreamer. Gandhi himself, like the Buddha, called himself just an ordinary man seeking for moral perfection. To Gandhi, non-violence was not merely a philosophical category, yet the

133

essence of his life and the struggle for man, which was reflected in his political struggle. The spiritual and moral principles defined his outlook, including its political aspect. «Ahimsa is comprehended not by reason, but by soul», Gandhi writes. «All of us can be saved only by the truth and non-violence». Ahimsa is rooted not in hate, but in love. The purpose of satyagraha is not punishing an opponent or doing him any harm, as «True ahimsa should mean complete freedom from ill will, anger, and hatred, and imply boundless love for all things». Ahimsa is an inner spiritual and moral orientation, which accepts the supreme value of life and love for humanity and all living things. Gandhi did not believe in the fast path to the success of non-violence policy, yet he realized that «the freedom won by bloodshed and deceit is no freedom at all». Man should conquer evil in his soul and avoid getting engaged in the outside evil. Like Dostoevsky, Gandhi supposes that God and the devil are fighting for the human heart. According to Gandhi, «force does not result from physical abilities, yet comes from indomitable will. Non-violence is the most powerful force at the disposal of mankind». What is the reason why it does not dominate the modern world? To be implemented, it requires a spiritual person who does not seek for power and domination, fame and fortune, but wishes to serve the nation and mankind represented by each oppressed and needy person. Mankind needs such moral and spiritual personalities to create a future non-violence policy.

In America, the famous follower of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King (1929–1968), the African American Baptist priest, spoke against racial segregation. African Americans had no legal possibilities to protect themselves from abuse, and the Ku Klux Klan «law» was dominating. Yet King was fighting for their rights non-violently, convincing the whites that the right to equality should be given, using Christian conduct as an example (in 1955, in Montgomery, a mass refusal to use public transportation, where African-American could not take a seat, if a representative of the white race was standing, took place). When racists

134

threw a bomb in his house (his wife and their small child had a narrow escape), he proclaimed, «Refrain from violence of fist, tongue, and heart». He stated, «We are against violence. We want to love our enemies. If they stop me, our case will not stop, because it is fair». As a result, the law of segregation in transportation was canceled, and people were no longer afraid of the Ku Klux Klan. King was able to awaken the souls of Americans. Both African Americans and representatives of other races started «departing» from hatred, and personality was recognized as the measure of man’s value. Both humanists, Gandhi and M.L. King, drew the conclusion that «political freedom, like the spiritual one, should be thought of as a concept implying equal rights»1. King regarded Gandhi as his teacher, and his destiny was similar: he was shot by an assassin.

Gandhi's position is sacrificial; he kept sacrificed himself for every man and mankind. This weapon of spiritual courage and non-violence is the strongest one in the world, but it can only come from an individual voluntarily accepting this obligation. This principle cannot be imposed by law and become state policy, as the state and society cannot consider themselves as a sacrifice for the world. This can happen only when all members of society and all citizens of a certain state share this viewpoint and get ready to defend it non-violently, even when there is a threat to personal safety and the very existence of the nation. This is probably impossible from the practical point of view, but personal selfless devotion and allegiance are possible; Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi, King, and many others are examples of such behavior. The more personalities sharing this position emerge, the faster war and violence cease to exist. It depends on the attitudes and actions of every person.

1 Ин-Сук Ча. Глобализация, культурная идентичность и развитие личности // Вестник Российского философского общества. № 3 (27), М., 2003. (In-Suk Cha. Globalization, Cultural Identity, and the Development of the Self. // Messenger of the Russian Philosophical Society. No 3 (27), Moscow, 2003. P. 32.

135

In 1960, M.L. King said, «I have come to the conclusion ...

that the Christian doctrine of love, acting through the Gandhian method of non-violence, is one of the most powerful instruments available to the oppressed in their struggle for freedom»1. It is known that, in 1959, he spent a month in India studying the principles of non-violence applied by Gandhi. «I found a method for social change in the fact that Gandhi emphasized love and nonviolence... I began to feel that it was the only morally and practically fair method available to the oppressed in their struggle for freedom»2. Christ gave M.L. King the spirit and motivation of the protest, whereas Gandhi suggested the method and technique of its expression. M.L. King «was trying to find a compromise between the concept of an immanent God, which is characteristic of the Liberals, and the sovereign, transcendent God of the NeoOrthodoxes ... God is both transcendent and (to the extent that He surpasses human sinfulness that hinders the full implementation of his legacy in this life) and immanent (to the extent that his moral principles serve as the motivation of the active struggle for justice)»3. In his opinion, a struggle cannot be won by prayer alone. To M.L. King, the most important point was realizing the need to act here and now instead of procrastinating. He deeply understood the essence of human freedom, proclaimed already by the biblical prophets, Socrates, and the early Christians who

1Quoted according to: Роберт Джонсон. Мартин Лютер Кинг-младший

иненасильственная борьба за гражданские права в Америке // Ненасилие как мировоззрение и образ жизни. М., 2000. (Robert Johnson. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nonviolent Struggle for Civil Rights in America // Nonviolence as a World Outlook and a Way of Life. Moscow, Institute of World History at the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000. P. 255).

2Кинг, М.-Л. Паломничество к ненасилию // Этическая мысль. М., 1991. (King. M.L. Pilgrimage to Nonviolence // Ethical Thought. Moscow, 1991. P. 173).

3Ярыгин Н.Н. Христианские ценности в современном мире // Вест-

ник ВГГУ. № 1 (1) 2008. Киров, 2008. (Yarygin N.N. Christian Values in the Modern World // Messenger of Vyatka State University of Humanities. No 1

(1) 2008. Kirov, 2008. P. 20).

136

courageously accepted their violent death, «There is a strange, irrational belief that there is something in the course of time that will inevitably cure all diseases. In fact, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am beginning to think that people of ill will have used time much more effectively than people of good will do. Our generation must repent not only for the caustic words and actions of bad people, but for the appalling silence of good people. We have to see that human progress never rolls on the wheels of inevitability. It develops due to the tireless efforts and continuous work of people who want to be God’s co-workers, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively and keep in mind that there is always time for good deeds»1. M.L. King also spoke against such extremes as complacency and adaptation to segregation, and against hatred and violence in the black environment. He expanded the statement saying that «good ends can be achieved only by good means», adding that «it is even worse to use moral means to achieve immoral ends».

Immanuel Kant also spoke against Machiavelli’s absorption of morality by politics and Machiavellian separation of politics from morality: «Politics says, ‘Be wise as serpents’, while morality adds (as a constraining limitation), ‘harmless as doves’», «true politics ... cannot take a step without paying tribute to morality in advance»2. Kant, who has inherited the tradition of classical political philosophy (Aristotle), argues that the true purpose of the policy is «correlating with the general purpose of society»3. He

1Кинг-младший М.Л. Письмо из бирмингемской городской тюрьмы // Ненасилие как мировоззрение и образ жизни. – М., 2000. (King Jr., M. L. Letter from Birmingham Jail // Nonviolence as a World Outlook and a Way of Life. – Moscow, 2000. P. 274–275).

2Ibid. P. 281.

3Кант И. К вечному миру // Соч. В 8-ми т. Т. 7. М., 1994. (Kant I.

Perpetual Peace. // Works in 8 Volumes. Volume 7. Moscow, 1994. P. 37, 259, 290).

137

summarized the theoretical search of the Enlightenment, justified the legal forms and methods of struggle for changing the social system, and announced the personality to be an end in itself for a social organization, «... the right of a person should be considered sacred, no matter what it may cost the ruling power»1. «Kant demands what is proper. This requirement, along with his apparent ‘simplicity’, is only in the belief that politics based on morality and law would be most fruitful, the most appropriate to the innate human rights – equality and freedom»2.

Kant expressed his socio-political ideas in his works titled

Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose

(1784) and Perpetual Peace (1795). In the latter, he mentions that a moral politician must base his activity upon «natural law as the ideas of reason, which is a model, no matter what it may cost to self-interest»3. According to Kant, this requirement is objective by nature, this is why «(in theory) there is no discrepancy between politics and morality»; this discrepancy arises in practice, subjectively, when a man has to struggle against selfishness in himself, not to bring it outside, into political life4. The problem today is that the things Kant considered objective and axiomatic, natural and a priori, are not only questioned, but denied altogether. Politics, even in theory, is recognized not only as a thing separated from morality, but having nothing to do with it; it is regarded as the «dirty work» where everything is admissible. There are calls to come to terms with such an understanding and such «politics». But while practice may take any turn, is it permissible to adapt the theory to the bad practice and justify it, even theoretically? The hideous existent things should not be allowed

1Кант И. К вечному миру // Соч. В 8-ми т. Т. 7. М., 1994. (Kant I.

Perpetual Peace. // Works in 8 Volumes. Volume 7. Moscow, 1994. P. 55–56).

2Ойзерман Т.И. Кант и Гегель. – М., 2008. (Oyzerman T.I. Kant and Hegel. – Moscow, 2008. P. 127).

3Кант И. К вечному миру // Соч. В 8-ми т. Т. 7. М., 1994. (Kant I.

Perpetual Peace. // Works in 8 Volumes. Volume 7. Moscow, 1994. P. 40).

4Ibid. P. 48.

138

to dominate over the things that should be, i.e. the requirement of moral intelligence inherent in man1.

Kant advocated good means to achieve the good, «… allegedly good intentions cannot wash away the stain of injustice off the means applied. – As to the objection saying that, due to such doubts of using power in order to establish the rule of law, all the land would have probably still remained in a state of lawlessness, well, even this kind of objection can destroy the specified legal provision as little as the pretext suggested by the revolutionaries who oppose the state, claiming namely that, when the state system is faulty, the nation has to transform it by using power, and, in general, injustice should be applied once and forever, in order to help justice succeed and go strong»2. Kant stands for nonviolent reforms, recognizing the malignancy of any revolution which «destroys any legal status»3.

Yet Kant, in his naïve enlightener-like manner, has supposed that even the devil, if he has the intellect, will finally transform into a luminous angel4, not to mention world history and such trifles as human selfishness: Kant undoubtedly believes in its socialization. Like his predecessors, he has believed that socialization of self-interest would reach the degree able to turn humanity into an «overall legal civil society» instead of the belligerent nations5. On the one hand, Kant opposes Machiavellian separation of politics from morality; on the other hand, he glori-

1More detailed about it is spoken in the issue «Návraty ku Kantovi» (L’ubomir Belás, Sandra Zákutná, Eugen Andreanskỳ, Ol’ga Sisáková. Prešov, AFPh UP 330/411., 2011). L. Belás, for example, deals with various aspects of Kant’s definition of politics and special attention here is paid to Kant’s understanding of the principles of moral politician and principle of publicity.

2Кант И. Метафизика нравов // Соч. В 8–ми т. Т. 6. М., 1994. (Kant. I. Metaphysics of Morals // Works in 8 Volumes. Volume 6. Moscow, 1994. P. 390).

3Ibid. P. 392.

4Ibid. P. 33.

5Кант И. Идея всеобщей истории… // Там же. Т. 8. (Kant I. Idea for a Universal History… / Ibid. Volume 8. P. 12).

139

fies the antagonism existing in society and the selfish nature of man, returning to the methodology developed by Machiavelli and Hobbes. Kant compares humble people to sheep and glorifies the «envious rival vanity», the «insatiable thirst to possess and dominate» as engines of progress, without which «all excellent natural inclinations of man would have remained undeveloped forever».

Dostoevsky is more pessimistic about this aspect: he presupposes that God and the devil are struggling in the heart of man to gain his soul. Dostoevsky regards human nature as antinomic; according to him, reason cannot combat evil alone, moreover, reason itself can serve it. Unlike Kant, who became the founder of German classical political philosophy, Dostoevsky may be referred to as the founder of existential humanist political philosophy. He has developed his ideas especially deeply in The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot, and The Devils, where he provides unmatched criticism of revolutionary violence. According to Dostoevsky, «compassion is the main and perhaps the only law of existence for the entire mankind»1. It is reflected throughout all his writings. The most profound, significant, and radical is the symbol of the «single tear shed by a child», described by Dostoevsky in the rebellion of Ivan Karamazov, when the character refuses to accept a bright future perfect society, if creating its foundation requires at least one tear of the child, «And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price»2. Dostoevsky agrees with Kant that the person is an end in itself and can never serve as a means.

However, Kant has developed a series of realistic suggestions, by which mankind can eliminate wars (no regular army, refusal to finance warfare, non-interference with internal affairs,

1Достоевский Ф.М. Полн. собр. соч. в 30-ти томах. Т. 8. Л.: Наука, 1976 (Dostoevsky F.M. Complete collective works in 30 volumes. V. 8. Leningrad, 1976. P. 192).

2Ibid. V. 14. P. 223.

140

etc.). His suggestions can be put into practice, yet reality lacks its single aspect: political will, on the one hand, and the requirements of universal civil society, on the other hand, which could force politicians to actually address the issue of ending violence in the world. Some of these items are implemented, partly they are breached, and some have not even been accepted yet (refusal to finance arms production and keeping standing armies; elimination of the arms race).

Yet, along with that, Enlightenment utopianism is typical of Kant, too. He believes that the public will get enlightened by itself if given freedom, «For this enlightenment, only the freedom to use one’s own mind on public is required». Formulating the categorical imperative of treating the others the way you wish to be treated in The Critique of Practical Reason, Kant actually reproduces the general will of Rousseau, giving it a priori features, «... the social imperatives of practical reason have a priori nature»1. The categorical imperative cannot be disobeyed because it is universal, not because it is commanded by God. Replacing the notion of an absolute by the category of universality, Kant tends to create a complete ethical system independent of theological study using it and freedom as the basis. The general will can even turn a masochist or a sadist into a respectable citizen; more exactly, only the general will can save the categorical imperative from some masochistic or sadistic perversion: everyone could not be like that. Only in these circumstances, the categorical imperative is able to work out. In the sphere of morality, the things able to become a universal law are the truth.

Violent Machiavellian, Hegelian-Marxist, and Liberal Bolshevik methodology of solving social problems (we can see the extreme right wing join the extreme left wing, inciting violence in Russia) must be replaced by a truly humanistic, democratic one (not in the sense of «democracy» as the ideology of usurpation

1 Кант И. Идея всеобщей истории… // Там же. Т. 8. (Kant I. Idea for a Universal History… / Ibid. Volume 8. P. 290).

141