Luther And Kant Essay

Throughout history, western philosophers have vigorously attempted to define the word freedom, to little avail. This is because the word carries so many meanings in many different contexts. The consequences of these philosophers’ claims are immense: as “free” people, we like to rely on the notion of freedom, yet our judicial system relentlessly fights to explain what we can and cannot do. For instance, is screaming “bomb!” on an airplane considered one of our “freedoms?” Martin Luther, in his “Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans” asserts that people are free when their actions naturally reflect laws and morality to the point that those laws are considered unnecessary. Immanuel Kant, in his “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”, articulates a similar view: freedom for Kant is the ability to exercise one’s reasoning without limitation in a public sphere. A deeper reading of these two texts exposes that Kant’s and Luther’s interpretations of freedom are actually more similar than different. Indeed, they are mutually exclusive: one cannot coexist with the other and Kant’s views can even be read as a restating of Luther’s understandings.

Luther is uneasy when it comes to how the law affects human behavior. His view is that laws exist to restrict and control man, and we are free to act within the law, but genuine freedom exists when we naturally adapt our actions to the shape of the law: “To have the law on our side is the very nature of freedom from sin and the law...this freedom consists of taking pleasure simply in doing good, or in living uprightly, without being constrained to do so by the law.” (Luther pg. 29, 30) Kant passionately contradicts Luther’s claim: “The citizen cannot refuse to pay t...

... middle of paper ...

... They are mature enough to understand the problems with the law, but that maturity also lets them realize that their freedom is restrained and that they have no power to change these laws.

Luther is more straightforward: “This freedom is therefore a spiritual freedom; it does not abolish the law; rather it supplies and furnishes what the law lacks, namely, willingness and love.” (Luther pg. 30) Luther claims that people can investigate and value their faith while maintaining the demands of the law. Where Kant imposes a false freedom first and later chips away at its foundations, Luther decrees from the outset that the parameters in question are the laws. Any deviation from the laws amounts to a paradigm shift that snatches away the person’s freedom. The person’s true freedom, then, for Luther, is the person’s free will and choice to enjoy conforming to the law.