Kant's philosophy - Moral politics vs. pragmatic politics

All action, according to Kant, follows either the principal of morality or that of happiness. This holds true also for political action and therefore politics either serves the realisation of right, as reason demands, or it serves the common wellfare. This exactly is what the conflict between the philosophical faculty and the faculty of law is about according to Kant. As far as he is concerned politics is allowed to be prudent and therefore think of what's beneficial, but only within the framework and not at the cost of right.Quote: 0:08The metaphysical state's right: 0:19Politics as exercisindoctrine of right: 19:21State's right and state's prudence: 26:46The conflict of faculties: 44:11The current ideology demands pragmatism and rejects any kind of idealism: 1:01:32What is presented to us as prudent in politics, often isn't at all: 1:15:20The selfish politics of the liberals is to blame for the rise of the right: 1:19:42Prudent politics has its place within the framework and in the service of the righteous one: 1:30:11Thanks: 1:42:12On the role of politics and its relation to right and prudence Kant talks again and again in various places of his moral and anthropological writings, especially in his essays On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf and Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm and in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai