Criticisms Of Kant 's Perpetual Peace

The conflict of war and its effects have been debated throughout history. Some argue that there are other peaceful alternatives besides war that would lead to a better outcome, but in reality this is not the case. War is a natural part of human interactions, and even though it brings death and destruction, war will not cease to exist. Wars are the human way of getting one group to look superior than the other. The idea of a passive approach is ideal, but it is almost nearly impossible and may not always lead to the same outcome as if a war had taken place.

Dating to the beginning of civilization, war continues to be a repeating occurrence in the world whether it be with oneself, society, or the outside influences in the world. In terms of war between countries, there is the growing controversy over its utilization and purpose when a country is predisposed to a situation foreboding unavoidable conflict. War is the only solution to certain situations but cannot be considered a panacea to all the issues prevalent in the world. The reasoning behind this is that war produces consequences some of which that are permanent. War has always spawn more conflict, gives disfigurement to human bodies, death and occasionally affects the state of one’s mind in areas such as mentality, emotions, rationality

Throughout history, war has always been described as an atrocity and an unnecessary reason for the loss of life. This is not the case. War is necessary for the survival of the economy, the sustainability of non-renewable resources, and the progression of inventions.

An Individual's autonomy can be altered or swayed by many different life circumstances, stages of human life, religion or faith and its many practices as well as mental capacity and comprehension. In regards to my own understanding towards the required reading it gives many compare and contrast between similar yet controversial topics one being of faith and religion another being that of an individual that is experiencing the manic phase of bipolar disorder. Compared to one of Jehovah's Witness' whom is making a decision based on a scriptural doctrine. The examples and practices of these two opposite and controversial topics have absolutely nothing to do with each other, however, I understand how an individual uneducated about the faith can be baffled.

Nobody ever said or ever agreed that war was a good thing; War is known to bring destruction, sadness and death. But looking at what comes after war, one would be surprised to realize that the outcomes of war, in the long run, bring something better than what was there before: innovation, progress and money.

War has been a part of human history since humans have had a history. Yet it has devolved from survival of the fittest into something baseless and cruel,

World peace is a topic chosen to prove that there is currently no possible way for us, humans, to achieve peace between all the nations without us having to deal with current problems we have now. The study of the topic has been quite hard, but fascinating as the research forehand has to lead me to discover more unknown problems that are likely to be preventing us from world peace. With evidence from credible articles, the paper determines that a solution to a war-free world without any problems is quite impossible. The evidence in the paper includes overpopulation effects, current arguments that can be possibly leading on to fatal war, and the design of the human brain which may be the direct cause of the violence that goes on in the world today. The evidence gathered will help assist that World Peace will not be happening in the world anytime soon.

The theme of war and peace has always been a problem in all periods of history and has affected the relationship between countries. The concern of the humankind for peace can be appreciated through that all religions, all religious scriptures, and organizations are helping to eradicate the wars. Yet the international community fully realized the supreme importance of the peace against the disagreements between nations after having experienced totals wars such as the 1st and 2nd world

Kant is considered a Liberal because he applies domestic liberal policies that emphasize “freedom of the members of the society” to the international system (Perpetual Peace pg. 4). By stressing the need to respect each country’s sovereignty, Kant demonstrates a tenet of Liberalism. Also, he proposes a “federation of nations” that would work together and multilateralism is another facet of Liberalism (Perpetual Peace pg 5). Kant argues for nations to adopt a “republican constitution” in the hopes of becoming the “foundation” for a “perpetual peace.” (Perpetual Peace pg. 4) His reasoning is that if all nations were republics, citizens would have the power to “determine whether or not there will be war” and would be much more analytical before

War is controversial, unfortunate, and certainly misunderstood; it is a transforming agent, a catalyst for change. Nonetheless, many people focus on war's negative consequences, while positive effects are downplayed. War is a necessary evil in the sense that it stabilizes population, encourages technological advances, and has a very high economic value. Without war, the overpopulation of the human race is inevitable. It is this reason that war is a useful tool by not only Mother Nature, but also humans themselves to institute population control.

Kant suggests that the reason the perfect state does not exist is that the peace is currently at the leisure of the state. These states spend vast amounts of money preparing for war and remain in a constant state of preparedness for war, which Kant says prevents the perfect states. Another current problem is that the leaders of states seek war in order to satisfy their pride for the state. According to Kant, the enlightened are those who arise out from a freedom from restrictions and a freedom of religion. The enlightened must save the human race from the proposals of rulers to limit personal freedom and autonomy. We should have confidence that eventually a single federation of all peoples will exist because it is the way of nature, which allows

The EU represents Kant’s idea of a federation of states in perpetual of peace in many of the more overarching ways, it must be noted that it is not a perfect fit. Before diving into the support of this claim, it is important to realize what the European Union is so to fully understand what it could represent. The EU is a political and economic union, hoping to facilitate free movement in terms of trading, with the intent of building peaceful relationships and increasing economic growth. Perhaps the biggest reason the EU was created was to increase peace throughout Europe and hopefully take away the possibility of another World War. The European Unions serves as a facilitator for agreement between each nation inside the union, and provides the

Evaluate Hobbes’s argument that the state of nature is a state of war. Hobbs conclusion that the state of nature is a state of war is not definitive, rather, the state of nature is a balance between war and peace due to the dynamic and different nature of individuals. The significance of the question is such that it helps to shed light onto human morality, and as a basis from which to derive morality. It is also significant because it helps understand the dynamic processes that help shape human beings and their interactions among them in the absence of a governmental entity. A further reason it is important is because human

The approximate number of war casualties in the past 100 years is estimated to be 180 million. The Second World War (1939-1945) alone accounts for 60 million fatalities, which commenced with a fascist aggression to the European peace. War has been inevitable over centuries, which has been fought for several reasons; competing ideologies, wealth, religious reasons, chase for power through its military actions, which exercises the real power of the state. Power arises from ‘great military powers’ and ‘great economic powers’. Indeed, the greatest powers obtained permanent seats on the Security Council of the United Nations. Can such security organisations including, non-governmental organizations really prevent conflicts? We have seen the inevitability of wars through the history, from which has arisen decades of theoretical debates (First ideologist-realist great debate took place between 1930’s and 1940’s, which focus was on the Nazi threat as well). Why is security crucial? Is there any alternative solution to abolish armed conflicts and struggles between states; or can we conclude, that war is inevitable?

In Hobbes book Leviathan, he makes the natural man out to be a self obsessed monster who is only interested in his own self preservation. This would intern leave the state of nature to be consumed with war, “...because the condition of man is conditions of war of everyone against everyone”. With out the constrain of government Hobbes states “So that in the state of nature man will find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Leviathan, 76). These principles would then leave men in the state of nature, with a life that Hobbes describes as “solitary, poor nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 76). Over all Hobbes view on the state of nature is a materialistic world where without an “absolute sovereign” the life of man would be nothing more then the “state of war”.