A Kantian Perspective On The International System

All of the above, Kant was the philosopher of human autonomy. He was of the view that human beings can determine and manage to live up to the basic principles of knowledge and action without assistance of anyone else, even without any divine support or intervention (Guyer). In this paper we will discuss the extent to which Kant's view of human nature provides a sustainable ground work for his views on the relationship between nations. In order to determine this, different opinions of Kant will be discussed regarding what his views about the human nature and how he compared it with the nations or states.

The Kantian idea of Europe is all about a federation, which means “a federation of independent states” in Europe, and it is mainly a “federal idea of Europe,” which is more cosmopolitan. There is some sort of relationship between the Dutch and Kantian ideas, which is about being a federation that the Dutch idea of Europe was about commercial and trade related, although the Kantian one was about being a federation of European states under one culture. In addition to this, “The Glorious Revolution of 1688–9 has traditionally been viewed as, first and foremost, a political event.”

Liberals believe the causes of war are miscommunication, mistrust, and misperceptions. As a solution, Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, believed that to overcome international anarchy and achieve perpetual peace, there needed to be collective action (interdependency between states), and a federation of states in which state sovereignty will be left intact (international organizations). However, for this to occur, states must have a democratic government. This later became known as the Kantian Triangle.

The ideals of the Enlightenment are the basis of our democracies and universities in the 21st century: belief in reason, science, skepticism, secularism, and equality. In fact, no other era compares with the Age of Enlightenment. Classical Antiquity is inspiring, but a world away from our modern societies. The Middle Ages was more reasonable than its reputation, but still medieval. The Renaissance was glorious, but largely because of its result: the Enlightenment. The Romantic era was a reaction to the Age of Reason – but the ideals of today’s modern states are seldom expressed in terms of romanticism and emotion. Immanuel Kant’s argument in the essay ‘Perpetual Peace’ (1795) that ‘the human race’ should work for ‘a cosmopolitan constitution’ can be seen as a precursor for the United Nations.

The Democratic peace thesis, whose basic concepts were studied by Kant in the 1700s, is the theory that suggests that democracies have been pacific in their relations with one other and are unlikely to go to war with another democracy. “Democracies rarely fight each other (an empirical statement) because (b) they have other means of resolving conflicts between them and therefore do not need to fight each other (a prudential statement),and (c) they perceive that democracies should not fight each other (a normative statement about principles of right behavior), which reinforces the empirical state¬ment. By this reasoning the more democracies there are in the world, the fewer potential adversaries we and other democracies will have and the wider the zone of peace.” russet

Kant begins the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by outlining four principles of morality. The first principle of morality, which will be explored in this paper, states that actions are only morally good if they are undertaken from a sense of duty. Kant subsequently develops this principle as the categorical imperative of morality. This paper begins with a comprehensive description of the categorical imperative, its contrast to the hypothetical imperative, and its role in Kant’s moral theory. In the second section of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant introduces the idea of universal maxims and their importance in morality. Thus, this paper will examine maxims and the connection between universality and morality. Finally,

In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Emmanuel Kant, we are presented with this conception of Kant’s called “the Form of Law.” With the discussion of the Form of Law, we will also come to encounter both moral law and the categorical imperative. Kant’s notion of the Form of Law, we will later see has a great deal of significance within the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Within the discussion of the Form of Law’s significance in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant also provides us with a response to a claim offered by David Hume. Also, provided in this paper will be both a discussion of correctness of action and the normative requirement. In this paper, I will present Kant’s conception of the Form of Law, as well as its significance in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and finally I will conclude the paper by evaluating this analysis of the structure of correctness in action and the normatively required.

As an individual, it becomes the duty of one to display good morals and to act according to the society's expectations. Kant continues on with his theories by expressing his reasons behind what is good and bad behavior shown from individuals. Individuals have the decision to make choices in order to maintain the moral principals. Furthermore, to have a better understanding of Immanuel Kant it is important to introduce contexts from the chapter about his theories and reasoning's behind what he believed

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

Kantian Cosmopolitans tie moral rationality to deliberations by arguing moral principles are derived from reasoning. As such, Kant concludes that universal morality may be discerned, and rational beings have value as ends in themselves (Donaldson, 138). This core assumption implicitly disagrees with Realists by theorizing humanity is capable of ignoring innate animal impulses if they do in fact exist. Furthermore, Kantian Cosmopolitanism opposes the Realist position that morality has no basis in foreign policy. This is demonstrated in Kant's belief that states have an "original right" to self-defense and that international confederation is best suited to "afford mutual protection" against aggression (Donaldson, 145).

Kant's Categorical Imperative determines the right action to be the one that is capable of becoming a universal law. In this regard, Kant argues that when decisions are made on the basis of human rights and duties, they fit the definition of being ethical because if everyone follows the same action, the world becomes a better place. To apply this test, one should answer the question of "what kind of a world would it be if everyone behaved this way?"

Kantian ethics has its foundation built on the concepts of fairness and justice – two ideas directly opposed by extremist groups. In a world where inequality and injustice often seem to win, Kantian ethics ask us to go beyond our individual desires and act on what are called categorical imperatives. These

Kant did not simply certify that persons are qualified for respect; he gave an involved conflict for that conclusion. Persons ought to be respected in light of the way that persons have pride. Laborers have a respectability that machines and capital don't have (Beauchamp, Bowie, N. E., and Arnold, D. G, 2004). In this light, multi-national organizations ought to protect the prosperity of every one of its specialists everywhere throughout the world and guarantee that the work and wage directions are being taken after. Completing social activity to ensure the prosperity of some person whose rights are being damaged is similarly right and in this way ought not be seen as method for upsetting the

People have an intrinsic worth above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there’s a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and must be uniformly abided by. This allows humanity to function as an amicable society; an amicable society that is achieved by treating ourselves and others with respect and dignity. Immanuel Kant’s theory known as the categorical imperative expressed an absolute belief in universal moral laws which enables humanity to be treated well. (Rachels EMP 129 & 139)

Kant thinks that the basic moral principles of our society come from people’s rationality, and people must follow these principles unconditionally. These moral principles are the Categorical Imperative. Meanwhile, its common rules have different directions in society. To conclude these directions, it can be reflected from three different formulations. Among the three formulations, the first formulation of universal law has standout features in the maxim and the constraints about people’s behaviors. With combined analysis of examples, the drawbacks of universal law also appear out.