The Irony of Kant's Accreditation

            Immanuel Kant is often regarded as one of the most iconic thinkers of the Enlightenment period as well as one of the primary cognitive pioneers of what is today considered “Moral Philosophy”. These accreditations, to me, come as ironic considering the many logical and ethical flaws of his positions on cognitive and physical integrity due to race. Kant, in a nutshell, seems to hold all non-white races in a lower regard, with Blacks on the bottom. Blacks, according to Kant, while very physically capable, are lazy and incapable of showing any intellectual capabilities that have allowed Whites to progress so far. This is a fairly bold statement to make on behalf of all black peoples, considering he never traveled more than 10 miles away from his hometown. Despite his lack of travel, Kant has extensively outlined both what he considers to be the physical and cognitive limitations of almost every geographical human race, as well as their physical appearances accompanied by shoddy biological explanations. How can a man with such little experience with traveling the world so boldly outline the characteristics and limitations of every human sect imaginable? How could this be considered “logical”, and how could such an esteemed philosopher of ethics hold such unethical views? According to some, perhaps the views and writings of Kant are purely a “product of his time”, and it is unreasonable for us to assume his views would have a solid link to modern day views? I personally can’t entirely agree with this assumption, as moral philosophy should not only adhere to certain cultural aspects within a particular social standing in time; philosophy, especially moral philosophy, should be timeless and apply to any given time era unless contradicted by facts unknown to peoples from said time period. The lack of critical study on peoples of different races (and people, in general) in Kant’s time may coincide with his racist remarks on most non-white races, however, it isn’t exactly uncommon for philosophy to transcend its time. Truly pure, critical logic in most sects of philosophy should only be limited by two things: the capacity to understand held by the particular being forging said thoughts and pertinent knowledge not yet acquired in their time. Social and cultural indoctrination should not be a limiting factor in the progression of a “solid” philosophical assertion.