By: Connor Lewis (The University of Michigan) | May 7, 2025
Despite my inclinations toward democracy, I partially agree with Kant’s view in the “What is Enlightenment” essay that, at least temporarily, the greatest intellectual freedom comes in a state run by a benevolent despot.
I understand intellectual freedom as distinct from political freedom in line with the way Kant considers the “public use” of reason as distinct from civic responsibilities. If one considers the freedoms in line it is a foregone conclusion that despotism is a limit: in a despotic society one has no political say. Understood separately, it seems intellectual freedom is best maintained when a benevolent despot can say “Argue as much as you want, and about what you want, but obey!” (Kant 2). A despot can say this without risking the possibility that those ideas affect societal stability as they might in a democracy.
Indeed, it seems that having a benevolent despot would prevent democratic attacks on intellectual freedom born from discrimination. Imagine a democracy where the majority profess one exclusionary faith, and the minority profess a myriad of other faiths. By democratic procedure, those of the first faith may stifle any kind of intellectual work done by the others. Meanwhile, should we imagine a benevolent despot in charge of the situation, intellectual freedom in expressing any of the faiths is guaranteed.
Similarly, a democracy conceivably has the potential to bar future generations’ intellectual freedom. For example, imagine one generation of citizens voting to set the laws on stone, thereby making any kind of intellectual progress more difficult for the following generations. Meanwhile, a benevolent despot would avoid any limiting of human’s capacity to reason as that would “trample man’s divine rights underfoot” (Kant 3).
Providing both stability and intellectual freedom requires the generously-made assumption that the despot is benevolent. However, throughout history there has been no shortage of non-benevolent despots. Indeed, it is difficult to say whether any despot in all of history has been truly benevolent, and thus our imagined despot is seemingly inhumanly perfect. It seems that even if we imagine such a person, amongst their successors there would certainly be a non-perfectly benevolent or even malevolent despot. In this event, as despotic society ensures the lack of political freedom of the populace, the people’s intellectual freedom necessarily becomes limited.
Comparatively, democracy seems to fare better. The possibility of one truly benevolent individual seems vanishingly unlikely at best, but the majority of people being truly benevolent seems unfathomably unlikely. However, while it is rather easy to imagine one non-benevolent despot, imagining the majority of people as non-benevolent seems rather difficult. Thus, as a populace transitions from one generation to the next it seems democracy will better avoid the most negative effects on intellectual freedom. Despite chilling effects it seems difficult for a democracy to harm intellectual freedom the way a malevolent individual can. As an example, consider 1930s Germany wherein Hitler was elected democratically. Some of the corresponding limits on intellectual freedom are thus directly attributable to democracy. Nonetheless, the worst horrors of the Nazi regime, those that caused incalculable harm to freedom however it is being understood, are attributable to a malevolent despotic government; not a democracy.
Seemingly, the worst potential failing of a democracy is a potential collapse to a non-benevolent or malevolent despotic government. While this is a potential negative outcome for democracy, it seems an assured negative outcome of the rule of a benevolent despot. Thus, a benevolent despot seems to best ensure temporary intellectual freedom, but a democracy seems to be the system which better attempts to ensure long-term intellectual freedom.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? Translated by Ted Humphrey, Hackett Publishing, 1784, nypl.org/sites/default/files/kant_whatisenlightenment.pdf.
(page numbers I refer to are from this article https://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/kant_whatisenlightenment.pdf. The above citation is in MLA 9.)