Eighteenth century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, explicated through his deontic moral theory that our ethical obligations are derived via rationality. In other words, what we know and understand of our ethical obligations must be conceived of a priori, or without regard to the observation of dismal human behavior. From this viewpoint, since the morals of rational agents stem from human reason, rational agents choose to adhere to ethical principals. As such, Kant understood that if a state is to protect an individual’s freedom, it must first protect a tolerate society through the cultivation of an individuals’ moral duty. So, by casting doubt on the noumenal world, he formulated that each person possesses a worth and dignity that must be respected regardless of race, gender, or religious association. Moreover, he felt that it is this dignity that makes it wrong for us to hurt others or for others to use us against our will.

Subsequently, Kant’s concept of morality marries our free will to a host of negative rights. These rights include, but are not limited to, the right to privacy, the freedom of speech, the freedom from religious persecution, and the freedom to not be harmed by others. As such, Kant believed that each of these negative rights came attached with a corresponding responsibility or burden. For instance, in securing our right to not be harmed, we have an obligation to not harm others; or in securing out right to privacy, we must be willing to allow freedom of the person to others. Clearly, in order to obtain this, Kant required that a moral life be grounded in the realm of human experience, and that, moreover, that moral life be protected by a constitutional regime.

Kant’s theory additionally prescribed to categorical imperatives, which are supported by internal motives as both an ends and a means. “Thus the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect.” (Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals) As such, these imperatives are synthetic laws, born upon one’s objective will, bearing principled weight. In this way, all universal laws are substantive and true, and an individual’s will is subject to that law by means of rationality. For this reason, Kant supported a liberal government that would be required to protect an individual’s natural negative rights, or their rights to liberty on the basis of non-interference. Additionally, those rights must bear a moral capacity.

Kant, like many other political philosophers, was additionally insistent upon the freedom of expression. He believed that any attempt by the state to curtail political or religious debate would be a cure worse than the disease of human evil itself. As such, a state cannot coerce its citizens into a belief in either God or ethical obligation. If it attempted to do so, it would be violating one’s dignity and reason. So, the question arises, how do you reconcile these beliefs in free will with punishment and immoral behaviors? For Kant, the uses of external disincentives are valid in order to ensure the rights of law-abiding agents. In other words, those that choose to harm others are subject to incarceration or fines because they are not entitled to the same freedoms as their victims. In other words, if one freely chooses to act immorally, one freely chooses to suffer the consequences. In this way, human rationality and dignity are preserved, punishment is enforced, and liberty remains.

In sum, Kant’s political ideal can be considered a forebear to what is now considered the classic form of liberal government. By arguing that intervention of the state is only appropriate when protecting the negative rights of its citizens, and that paternalism is never an option, Kant forces our choices and moral obligations to stem from reason. As such, our beliefs and our inherent internal mechanisms can never be controlled or coerced by the state. This limited scope of government creates a categorical imperative for its citizens to conform to universal law. “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” (Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals) Thus, it is our duty to treat our fellow men with conscientious respect and ethical principle, and to cultivate a rational tolerance in our daily lives. In this way, the state of conscientiously choosing the moral law of obligation is the only state, for Kant, that is good in and of itself.