Kant vs. Luther on Freedom: Enlightenment and Faith

Introduction: Two Visions of Human Freedom

In What Is Enlightenment?, Immanuel Kant relates man's freedom to his immaturity, with a special focus on the individual in relation to society. In his "Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul," Martin Luther describes man's freedom in relation to Christian religion. These works not only differ in their content but are contradictory in meaning. The differences stem from the fact that Kant places society at the center of freedom while Luther places God at the center.

The Law: Obedience, Motivation, and Society

The first restriction on man's freedom presented by both thinkers is that of the law. However, Kant and Luther treat the law in very different ways. Luther argues that the law is more than just an action, and that one is not truly lawful unless one follows the law willingly: "His [God's] law must be fulfilled in your heart, and cannot be obeyed if you merely perform certain acts" (Luther 20). Luther's statement shows that there is more to law than mere compliance — the motivation for obeying the law is equally important. He elaborates on this point:

"To fulfil the law, we must meet its requirements gladly and lovingly; live virtuous and upright lives without the constraint of the law, and as if neither the law nor its penalties existed" (Luther 21).

Kant treats the law very differently. While Luther argues that a law is not really obeyed if it is only obeyed for the sake of obeying, Kant argues the opposite. Kant differentiates between what one believes and what one does, making his point through the example of a soldier obeying an officer: "He must simply obey. But he cannot reasonably be banned from making observations as a man of learning on the errors in the military service, and from submitting these to his public for judgment" (Kant 53).

Here we see that what one does is actually less important than what one believes. The main difference in each thinker's treatment of law relates to focus. Luther is focused on laws as they relate to God, where the individual is the most important factor: "God judges according to your inmost convictions" (Luther 20). Kant's focus is quite different — he is concerned with what laws mean for society as a whole rather than for the individual.

Faith and Good Works: Inseparable or Distinct?

This contrast in focus is also evident when considering the idea of good works. Luther argues that good works are only genuinely good when they are driven by faith:

"Hence, the man of faith, without being driven, willingly and gladly seeks to do good to everyone, suffer all kinds of hardships, for the sake of the love and glory of God who has shown him such grace. It is impossible, indeed, to separate works from faith, just as it is impossible to separate heat and light from fire" (Luther 24).

Kant argues quite the opposite, separating works from faith. Kant speaks of a priest who teaches one thing while believing another and sees "nothing in this which need trouble the conscience" (Kant 54). Kant gives the following reasoning:

"For what he teaches in pursuit of his duties as an active servant of the church is presented by him as something which he is not empowered to teach at his own discretion, but which he is employed to expound in a prescribed manner and in someone else's name" (Kant 54).

In this passage, Kant distinguishes between what one says in a role that has been assigned to them and what one believes personally. If something is said in an official role, it does not carry the same moral weight as if it were said in the public sphere. Luther would dispute this point, insisting that the work of faith must be attached to genuine faith.

Relating these ideas to freedom, we can see that Kant's argument contains two distinct types of freedom. First, one has freedom to act within a role and to carry out its requirements. This extends to the idea that while in such a role, one does not have freedom to express personal views: "in view of this, he is not and cannot be free as a priest, since he is acting on a commission imposed from outside" (Kant 54). Second, one has freedom to express opinions in the public sphere. Again, we see the link to society rather than to the individual.

In Luther's argument there is less personal freedom, with people being driven to act on the basis of faith. A person's actions are therefore not grounded in personal decisions or shaped by society, but governed by whether or not that person possesses faith.

Conclusion: Contrasting Foundations of Freedom

The two works hold contrasting ideas rooted in their different centers of gravity: Kant places the relationship between individuals and society at the heart of his argument, while Luther is focused on the link between the individual and God. According to Luther, people have no free will because God is the giver of everything. According to Kant, people lack free will only because of their lack of enlightenment. For Kant, freedom is something that can be achieved. For Luther, the absence of complete freedom is a certainty and a constant.