Immanuel Kant's Definition Of Ritual Peace

The ethnic conflict on Friday February 24th, did not go the way that my country, Tundistran, had hoped. Our objective was to keep the Ostracites in our state and refuse investigation. We managed to transfer the Ostracite homeland to our ally, Petropol, and a vote was set forth that refused the Ostracites independence. Following the PSF vote, our ally Paxony voted against us as did Industrael who was originally voting in our favor. These two countries were paid off in butter and guns to help Islandia win objective points.

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

Throughout the history of mankind there has come to be two factors that are seen as inevitable. The first is progress, humans are naturally competitive creatures who not only want to insure their own safety but also get one up on their neighbours. Progress has led to huge leaps forward, not only technologically but also socially. However, aside from progress there is another factor, war. Time and time again throughout history humans have fought and killed each other for their own selfish reasons and security. And according to political theorists such as Hobbes this is simply the state of nature, a perpetual state of ‘war of all against all’, further surmising that it is due to this that mankind is fundamentally selfish. However, just because so far, mankind’s history has consisted of an endless cycle of wars, does that mean that it must continue to be this way? Political Philosopher Immanuel Kant outlines a number of articles that he hypothesises could lead towards a perpetual peace. There are many criticisms of Kant’s perpetual peace, many argue that it is to idealistic and utopian. However, Kant doesn’t deny these claims. Instead Kant argues that if this ‘perpetual peace’ is even a remote possibility then for the good of mankind, we have a duty to try make it a reality.

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 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?

While Europe continued to struggle – through both war and diplomacy – because of power politics, the thirteen American states were bound together through law and order. Immanuel Kant, in his work “Perpetual Peace” written in 1795, theorized that democratic countries would not go to war with one another because they would only go to war in self defense. While many of the Founding Fathers such as Jefferson believed this theory, some, like Alexander Hamilton, saw war as a consequence of a desire for power that is in human nature. This struggle between idealists – such as Jefferson – and realists – such as Hamilton – has, therefore, existed since the birth of the United States. It was the idealists, however, that believed in the capacity of better institutions to produce better outcomes; that the New World would be federalist, apart from the Old World, and, in essence, better.

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do.

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

Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals serves the purpose of founding moral theory from moral judgment and examining whether there is such thing as a ‘moral law’ that is absolute and universal. In chapter three of his work, he discusses the relationship between free will and the moral law and claims “A free will and a will under moral laws are one and the same.” He stands firm in his belief that moral law is what guides a will that is free from empirical desires. To be guided by moral laws it would require men to be ideal rational agents.

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the ability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another.” (Kant pg.54) Perhaps these sentences are amongst the finest representation of the modern time and its rationality. Modernity is believed to be the transition from a traditional folk society to urban industrial societies, a transition that alters all parts of society in a certain way. Modernism was a response to industrialization, and the influence industrialization had on humanity. Society had a tremendous change over the 19th century, and by WWI it must have seemed as if the world was a horrifying and hopeless place. One evident example can be seen in the book “All Quiet on the Western Front”, which is a

In all of Human history, only 8% of that time has been completely at peace. From 150 million to 1 billion people in total have been killed by war. That’s 150 million families at least who have had their loved ones ripped from their grasp. This is far too many. War is unnecessary and barbaric. In “just and unjust war” by Howard Zinn the complexities of whether or not a war can be called just or unjust are debated. Peace can be achieved. the three crucial steps toward making world peace are education, open communication, and human rights laws must be strictly enforced.

No peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recognize and accept the principle that

His essay has many modern aspects. He expected that his efforts would be disregarded by those in power, those who decide to make war. In his preface, Kant wrote (1795, p. 85) that “The practical politician assumes the attitude of looking down with great self-satisfaction on the political theorist as a pedant whose empty ideas in no way threaten the security of the state”.

When it comes to guiding our moral actions, I believe that care ethics is the better moral philosophy to follow over Kantian deontology. While both moral philosophies strongly believe in defending the dignity of our fellow man, care ethics believes that nurturance and caring is the best way to defend a person’s dignity, as opposed to Kant who believe that our actions alone determine our dignity and worth. There are a number of reasons why one should choose care ethics over Kantian deontology. The first reason is that, in his moral philosophy, Kant chooses reason over feeling. The second reason is that Kant lacks compassion for the unique situations of others by suggesting that the principle of good is universifiable. The third reason is that Kant ignores how the consequences of our actions affect others. Finally, the fourth reason is that Kant implies that while we should all seek to perfect our moral selves, we are not responsible for the moral growth and perfection of others. Instead, we are merely obligated to help others and promote their happiness.