Firstly, Kant commences the discourse of this section in explaining the respect that all humans owe to other human beings. He specifically states from the start that, “Every man has a rightful claim of respect from his fellow men, and he is also bound to show respect to every other man in return” (Metaphysics 462). In this specific section, Kant will also go on to say how respect is a moral duty that can be compromised by the characters of pride, slander, and mockery, but are also essential to friendship; friendship, which is also a duty but in a more realistic manner than we have previously seen in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.
Kant formally makes the claim that all humans are required to show respect, due to the fact that humans need to maintain the dignity that is existent among humanity (Metaphysics 462), which also shows a sort of worth within our culture. But it is not only the respect of other people that humans must follow; Kant explains that respect for the law is the respect that precedes any other kind of respect. If one respects the law and the universal maxims in society, it is implied that one will also have respect for humanity. As a duty, the respect that one gives to mankind and to the law of the land is described by Kant as the “respectable” and “decent” thing to do (Metaphysics 464). On the other hand, the characteristics of pride, calumny, and mockery are described by Kant as a loss of respect and dignity for humanity (466). Kant specifically states that these characteristics “cast a shadow of worthlessness upon our species…” (466). Therefore, respect is a duty among all humans, which represents our dignity and, in a way, our superiority among all other species that exist on the Earth.
Finally, Kant describes friendship and its relationship with respect in the last discourse of this section. What is more interesting in this section, though, are the differences that can be seen between the arguments of Kant and Aristotle on the matter of friendship. The main difference is Kant’s perception of “reality” in friendship. He maintains the argument that a true friendship, the union of two people, is realistic and may not always be moral, but he agrees with Aristotle in stating that there are no true models of friends amongst us (470). He maintains the realism in his argument in stating that, “it is a burden to feel oneself tied to the destiny of others and laden with alien responsibilities” (470). Therefore, Kant agrees that fights are common among friendships, but what makes a friendship truly moral is the mutual openness between the individuals (471), not that the individuals have to be mirror images of each other as Aristotle believes.
I have come to agree that Kant’s realism within his arguments are more perplexing to the notion of respect in our modern world, but I also have to question his statement that it is an “outrage to inflict punishments” among others (463). Not all humans can follow a morally just life, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t try. Isn’t punishment a method in which we are able to put other humans on the right track to happiness (it does not only have to be physical punishment)? We sometimes use war as a type of punishment; are all types of punishment wrong in the eyes of Kant?