Marcus Willaschek again accused Kant of racism. Racism consists of “discriminating” people based on their bare skin color or taking a “degrading look” at them. Fortunately, what he accuses Kant of is no longer what he accused him of in the previous article: Kant “did not think through the universalism of his moral philosophy.” He also now admits that it is “historical merit” for Kant to “have granted” the same rights to all people in principle. He should actually now admit that Kant was an anti-racist. Because from the fact that all people have equal rights, according to the categorical imperative, there follows the obligation to respect the dignity of every person, regardless of the mere empirical characteristics attributed to them. Using words to belittle people of other skin tones is also an insult, which, according to Kant’s principles, must be considered immoral. Kant did not yet have the word “racist”. But that doesn’t change anything.

So Willaschek should now regard Kant as an anti-racist. Are there good reasons why he is not ready to do this? He himself does not give such reasons. On the contrary. He leaves things in the dark by quoting expressions from Kant’s statement, which he claims to be “racist”, and then constructing a contradiction with which Kant got involved. He writes: “But who, like Kant, grants all people the same dignity cannot say without contradiction that the” inhabitants of America “lack the ability to” all culture “.”

.