|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: Hugo Herrera invoca a Kant, pero votó Kast: Cuando el aprendiz de filósofo es incoherente

By Leopoldo Lavín Mujica

Hugo Herrera, a philosophy of law professor at UDP and political commentator, disclosed in an interview with Tomás Mosciatti that he voted for José Antonio Kast in the runoff election. He could have chosen to abstain, nullify his vote, cast a blank vote, or support Jeannette Jara, the candidate from the Unidad por Chile coalition. Instead, Herrera opted for Kast.

The core issue lies not in his vote per se, but rather in Herrera’s frequent appeals to Immanuel Kant in public discourse. Kast embodies the very tendencies that the German philosopher critiques, both ethically and politically.

The conclusion is unavoidable: one who genuinely defends Kantian principles cannot vote for J. A. Kast. Herrera’s choice is not a mere nuance or a lesser evil; it represents a fundamental logical and practical contradiction.

To understand why, it is essential to revisit Kant’s teachings. Born in 1724 in Königsberg, East Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia), and passing away in 1804, Kant was a central figure in the Enlightenment and Western modernity. He laid the groundwork for democracy with a simple yet imperative dictum: treat every individual as an end in themselves, never as a mere means.

While you may ask a worker to complete a task, you cannot exploit them, pay them a pittance, and discard them. You might wish to regulate immigration, but you must not dehumanize migrants. Every individual possesses dignity, not a price. This dignity is universal: no state may treat a foreigner as an enemy simply for arriving. This concept is foundational to Kant’s notion of the right to hospitality.

Furthermore, in his 1795 essay On Perpetual Peace, Kant advocated not only for peace among nations but also outlined the concept of a «Society of Nations» (a federation of free states). This vision, which rejected the notion of a world superstate to prevent despotism, directly influenced the current United Nations—an institution vital today for condemning war crimes and crimes against humanity as prerequisites for peace.

Another significant philosophical lesson appears in his 1784 article What Is Enlightenment?: Sapere aude, dare to think for yourself! The Enlightenment (The Age of Reason, criticized by all forms of obscurantism, conservatism, and neoreaction) represents the move away from infantilism, that convenient lethargy of willfully submitting under tutelage and delegating the task of thinking to others—be it a pastor, a military leader, or an autocrat.

Kant demands the public use of reason under conditions of equality: no one may shut down rational debate. Republican politics relies on open and reasoned discussion, grounded in the understanding that an opponent is a conversation partner, not an enemy to be silenced.

Now, let us examine Kast. As a neoliberal, he reduces labor to mere commodity and opposes the advancement of labor rights, treating individuals as disposable instruments.

There is an even darker aspect: Pinochet is the black hole in Herrera’s Kantianism reflected in his vote for the current president. Kast admires the tyrant’s figure, lamenting that dictator Pinochet could not defend himself. Kant is unequivocal: a regime that tortures, disappears individuals, and commits murder negates the very condition of a Republic. No «concrete historical form» can justify state terror.

“Dignity is not a price,” writes Herrera. However, voting for someone who admires a figure that trampled on the dignity of thousands of Chileans is an insurmountable contradiction. In this vein, his government has enacted budget cuts to Sites of Memory (twenty billion reduced) and seeks to grant pardons to military personnel convicted of crimes against humanity. Amnesty International has warned that this would «broaden the gap of impunity.»

On the fiscal front, contradictions become even starker. Can tax evasion be universalized? Here, Herrera’s contradiction reaches a critical point. The problem, of course, is that Mosciatti lacks a grasp of philosophy and possesses a selective memory. Let us recall the Panama Papers.

In 2019, an investigation by La Tercera revealed that Kast was involved in a family holding that included three companies established in Panama—Foods & Merchandising Investments Inc., Austral Inversiones S.A., and Latin American Real Estate Investment Co. —which were never declared in any of his asset disclosures during his 16 years as a deputy, despite a 2016 law explicitly requiring the declaration of foreign assets.

Faced with documentary evidence, J. A. Kast declared on television: “I have nothing in Panama. One cannot declare what does not exist.” However, records from the Public Registry of Panama describe him, along with his brother, as the holders of all issued and outstanding shares of those three companies.

Recent investigations reveal that a merger in 2024 transferred control of four hotels in Florida from Chilean companies to a Panamanian entity, potentially removing those assets from the reach of the Chilean tax authorities.

No local focus here, then. Now let’s impose the categorical imperative in its most well-known formulation: act only according to that maxim that you can will to become a universal law.

The implicit maxim in this operation might be something like: “Those with sufficient resources can move their assets to tax havens or opaque structures to reduce their contributions to the state, benefiting from public services without paying for them.”

Can Kast will for that maxim to become a universal law? Clearly not. For if all citizens did the same, the Chilean state would find itself without funds for schools, hospitals, courts, and security. The maxim self-destructs upon universalization, rendering it morally illegitimate.

If Kantian republican equality demands that laws apply to all without exception, tax evasion—no matter how it is dressed up as “simplification”—is not a mere irregularity: it is a breach of the republican pact. Those who organize their wealth to benefit from a system that others finance treat themselves as ends while treating others as means.

Moreover, there is an aggravating factor that Herrera seems to overlook or downplay. President Kast is not an isolated phenomenon; he is an active part of an international far-right movement that has declared war on the Enlightenment. He presides over the Political Network for Values, meets with Viktor Orbán and Santiago Abascal, and participates in CPAC alongside Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro.

These currents do not merely disagree with Kant; they openly combat him. Publications from this spectrum accuse the Enlightenment of having destroyed the family, tradition, and natural order, advocating a return to unquestioned authority.

The script is the same everywhere: closing down the immigration debate, stigmatizing dissent, and hierarchizing human dignity. Kast has adopted this script as his own, and Herrera, by voting for him, has endorsed it. In the face of this heteronomous morality—values imposed by power elites—Kant defended the moral autonomy of the free individual who thinks for themselves. Herrera, however, has chosen to side with the opposite. This is how human rights violations become normalized.

Let us scrutinize the current influence of Kant in the thought of the late German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who passed away just a few weeks ago and was perhaps Kant’s most rigorous heir in the 20th century. His entire life was dedicated to defending deliberative democracy, with the public sphere as a condition for freedom.

Habermas’s work aimed to demonstrate that political legitimacy does not stem from identity, tradition, or the leader’s will, but from open discussion among free and equal citizens. Therefore, in the face of leaders who close down debates, minimize dictatorships, or conceal their wealth in tax havens, Habermas would have been relentless. He would never, under any strategic calculus, have voted for José Antonio Kast.

However, Herrera’s problem is not merely personal; it constitutes public harm. By invoking Kant to criticize the left while supporting someone who violates everything Kant represents, Herrera poisons the public space. He leads his readers to believe that one can be Kantian and vote for Kast when, in truth, that is an impossible contradiction.

At this juncture, someone might object that Herrera justified his vote with the phrase “better dead than red.” This phrase, by the way, is not just a simple saying: it was a Nazi propaganda slogan. The German version, „Lieber tot als rot“, was used by Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, in the closing months of World War II to mobilize the German populace against the advance of the Red Army.

As documented by the wikipedia, Goebbels disseminated it through Radio Werwolf to motivate soldiers and civilians “to fight against the Red Army to the death.” Herrera, perhaps unknowingly, justified his vote with the same logic as the executor of Nazi propaganda. The “red” he referred to was Jeannette Jara.

However, there is an important caveat that Herrera deliberately overlooks: Jara’s program did not violate Kantian principles. One could disagree with her communist militancy, discuss her views on property or her history, but she did not propose tax evasion, nostalgia for dictatorship, governance by decrees, deceit, or the suppression of debate, nor did she seek support from far-right international organizations. She was a legitimate political adversary within republican rules.

Yet, Herrera chose Kast, who systematically violates those principles. What Kantian options did he have? He could have abstained, nullified his vote, or even voted for Jara. He chose none. He opted for Kast. And he did so with an argument that is not rational but visceral: fear or disdain for the ideological opponent, further disguised with a slogan of Nazi origin. This is not Sapere aude. This is self-imposed minority status, the laziness of not thinking, and the comfort of delegating to a leader who promises easy answers.

The incoherence is grotesque. Herrera preaches Sapere aude and practices submission. He wants to hold Kant in one hand and Kast in the other, but that is impossible. He himself cites Kant: “There are no shortcuts. Thinking is hard.” Yet Herrera chose “happy vulgarity,” which Kant himself described: that disposition that avoids the hard work of principles.

Thus, his columns may seem impeccable, while his vote is clearly morally indefensible. Because philosophy is not something to be voted on: it must be thought about. And if one truly thinks about it, they will discover that one cannot have Kant in one hand and Kast in the other.

Leopoldo Lavín Mujica

La entrada Philosopher Hugo Herrera’s Vote for Kast Sparks Debate: An Examination of Inconsistencies se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.