How do I write a speech on 'necessity knows no law'?

Answer 1

If you are to write a speech on "necessity knows no law", you must first have a position. Before you have a position you must know what is meant by the statement; "necessity knows no law'. The statement is asserted by German philosopher Immanuel Kant and is stated as such:

There is no casus necessitatis except in the case where an unconditional duty conflicts with a duty which, though perhaps great, is yet conditional; e. g. if the question is about preserving the State from disaster by betraying a person who stands towards another in a relation such as, for example, that of father and son. To save the State from harm is an unconditional duty; to save an individual is only a conditional duty, namely, provided he has not been guilty of a crime against the State. The information given to the authorities may be given with the greatest reluctance, but it is given under pressure, namely, moral necessity. But if a shipwrecked man thrusts another from his plank in order to save his own life, and it is said that he had the right of necessity (i. e. physical necessity) to do so, this is wholly false. For to maintain my own life is only a conditional duty (viz. if it can be done without crime), but it is an unconditional duty not to take the life of another who does not injure me, nay, does not even bring me into peril of losing it. However, the teachers of general civil right proceed quite consistently in admitting this right of necessity. For the sovereign power could not connect any punishment with the prohibition; for this punishment would necessarily be death, but it would be an absurd law that would threaten death to a man if when in danger he did not voluntarily submit to death.-From "Das mag in der Theorie richtig seyn, u. s. w." (Rosenkr., vii., p. 211.)

What does Kant mean by no "casus necessitatis"? It's unclear if even he knew what he meant since he immediately contradicts the statement by creating an exception, which necessarily means that there is "casus necessitatis". The exception is said to be unconditional duty and the example he offers is ones duty to the State, which he asserts is an unconditional duty. It is unclear, just from reading the paragraph cited, how he came to the conclusion that an individual is obligated to some unconditional duty to the state. In order to understand this moral precept one has to wade through several volumes of Kant's philosophies, including 'A Critique of Pure Reason' which is more than 800 pages! In the end, it is Kant's peculiar views on morality and moral duty that shape the thought behind "necessity knows no law'.

For all the pages and formulations that Kant presented it seems that his view on morality comes down to this; forget happiness and do your moral duty. It is a peculiar view in my opinion as it seems to me that happiness is your moral duty. In fairness to Kant, I'm not sure I understand his philosophy but in fairness to me, I'm not sure his philosophy is understood by anybody. In doing your own research on Kant and his philosophy through the internet, you will find authors who in attempting to explain his philosophy will make clear that it is difficult to understand. Given that Kant acknowledged that morality is in the category of law, it is odd to me that he couldn't or wouldn't acknowledge that law is easily understood. He, could be considered the godfather of philosophical reasoning for plunder and lawlessness.

"Act only according to that maxim where by you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Is perhaps the most dangerous thought he ever crafted. It is from this idea where positive law or man made laws finds it vindication. I do not believe it was his intent, nor do I believe he would condone the horrific plunder perpetuated by capitalist and communists alike. Where Kant does acknowledge the reality of property, the philosophers such as Hume, Marx, and so many of the European socialist who were directly influenced by Kant quite obviously disagree with him on the notion of property. There is something charming, even noble about Kant's willingness to contradict himself and even be confused, but that confusion combined with the unfortunate dismissal of 'pure reason" by those later influenced by his work has wreaked untold havoc on civilization today. The notion that we can will a law into existence is empirically false. Kant attempts to make his ideas work by creating a dichotomy with the analytic/synthetic distinction which is a conceptual distinction that states analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meanings and synthetic propositions are not.

He further muddles the playing field of life by suggesting representation makes objects possible in contrast with the idea that objects make representation possible. In a purely quantum mechanics sense, or as he puts it, a "metaphysical" stance, he might be right. But gravity is not a "metaphysical" law. Neither is morality. Gravity did not come into play, once Sir Issac Newton wrote down it's mathematical equation. Gravity existed, Newton discovered it and represented it. Murder did not become law because one individual or collective individuals willed it to be so. Murder is a crime because it acts in a way not consistent with our own survival. All living species respond to one simple imperative, or command; to survive. There is evidence of this all around us, from the insect that desperately tries to escape the murderous shoe of the man who attempts to kill it, to the seed who found itself in the unenviable position of being planted under a rock. Watch how desperate that seed will attempt to sprout into a plant crawling out from under that rock. It could be stated that survival is an 'unconditional duty'. If it is true that survival is an unconditional duty then, of course, there is a law of necessity.

His notion that an individuals survival is only conditional is also a thought that readily fits the philosophies of those who would plunder. Kant places the State above the individual seemingly unaware that the State has no meaning with out the individuals that make up that State. The idea that obligation to the State is an unconditional duty and individual survival conditional is the sort of idea that tyrants embrace. In a country, such as the United States of America, where the inherent political power belongs to the people his idea of the State then becomes the people. So then, based on Kant's principle our unconditional duty is to the people. But, even then, there is room for tyranny where it could be argued that the "people" in terms of a State is concerned with collective rights and not individual rights. Of course, "collective rights are imagined where individual rights are self evident. It is evident that all people are free to speak, but who would speak for the "collective"? It is evident that all people are free protect themselves, but who protects the "collective"?

The law of necessity states that if an individual is faced with great harm or destruction because of an existing law, then the rule of necessity is that the law is secondary. This is not just true of positive law, (man-made laws), but also true of natural law. On the one hand, it is gravity that keeps us from being far flung into the deadly environment of space, but in the end, it is gravity that wears us down. That we must obey the law of gravity is a given, but if we hope to accumulate any sort of longevity, we must fight against the 'will' of gravity and not succumb to the inevitable destruction that gravity wreaks upon our bodies. Gravity ask us to stay seated or to stay in bed, it is our will that makes us get up, not some sense of moral duty. It is the will of the individual that has provided all that was good for the collective, and never the reverse. Even the socialist and communist ideals were formulated by the wills of individuals, who elevated themselves above the humanity they harbor so much suspicion of and distrust so emphatically. For the socialist utopian only they and they alone know what is best for the rest of us, and it is through their will that we are elevated to a better position. The collective itself is a product of the utopian who willed it.

For Kant the only necessity is a collective necessity which seeks to negate the individual as subservient to the collective. Individual necessity has no valid justification in Kant's philosophy, and is willing to suggest that ones own life is subject to sacrifice in the name of some greater good. As always, in a world where one can only hope to become "worthy of happiness", Kant remains unclear on exactly how one becomes worthy of happiness. All people are worthy of happiness, there is no inherent sin that would keep them from being worthy. It is the sins that are committed that affect our happiness. We live a moral life not out of duty, but in order to be happy. If laws made by man do harm to an individual, then for that individual it becomes necessary that the law has no weight or force. For a country such as the United States of America, where all power flows from the people, any law that would abrogate or derogate the rights of an individual, have no weight or force. It is very difficult to find any natural law that harms the rights of others, and infinitely easier to find volumes of positive law that harm individuals. For the good of the State it is necessary that each individual is free to protect themselves and their property from harm. When the good of the State becomes the usurpation of ones man property to be given to another man in the name of welfare, then the State will begin to crumble.

These are my opinions verses what I believe to be Kant's opinions, and even if I have misinterpreted Kant, in writing a speech on this subject I would assert that Kant is flat out wrong about an individuals survival being conditional. I would assert that the law of necessity is the best and surest defense against collectivist laws that would gladly destroy individuals in the name of the State.