Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace

“…I do not believe that peace either ought to be or will be permanent on this globe, unless the states pacifically organized preserve some of the old elements of army-discipline. A permanently successful peace-economy cannot be a simple pleasure economy.” (53). Thus, humans need an equal balance of peace and war to attain a faultless

Ross, W. D. "The Ethical Theory of Immanuel Kant." Introduction. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon, 1930. N. pag. Print.

Immanuel Kant, a philosopher, main goal was to discover the answer to how human beings could be genuinely good and kind, apart from the expectations of traditional religions. Immanuel Kant was born in the year 1724 to parents who were extremely modest. His father was a saddle maker who never made an excess amount of money. He was very thankful for his family and all things God had him blessed with. Kant got a late start in his studies, unlike David Hume. It was not until he was in his fifties that he became a professor that acquired a full salary and received a considerable amount of respect. Kant’s family held him to high standards and made it appoint to practice their religious beliefs. As Kant grew in age and knowledge he did not have any orthodox religious beliefs, but still saw the role that religion had played in his parent’s ability to deal with their hardships and blessing and how useful religion could be in creating a society where everyone was united.

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.

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”.

Kant's conceived confederation of states, however, is non-binding and subject to constant renewal, exposing it to the Realist counterargument for Morality of States theorists' convictions that states are able to punish aggressors. Arguably, the greatest divergence between Realists and Kantian Cosmopolitans is the latter's belief that states "must act in accordance with the idea of perpetual peace" regardless of its possibility. To this, Realists likely argue their position's sole concern

Although raised in the Christian faith, Immanuel Kant desired to approach the possibility of reaching perpetual peace using reason, and natural laws alone. In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Kant explains the necessities required within a society that could bring about a form of perpetual peace. In doing so, Kant’s argument mostly focused on the avoidance of war, and keeping peace within the states. Although he envisioned the possibility of this peace occurring within a society, I argue that his notion of perpetual peace actually happening is inevitable. Of course, there are countless ways of approaching the argument against Kant. Therefore, by using the writings of Fahon and Weil, the argument could be shown with the support of both

Immanuel Kant was a German Philosopher during the Enlightenment era in which he wrote his social and political philosophy

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

Kant’s view emphasizes the importance of rationality, consistency, impartiality, and respect for persons in the way we live our

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

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

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)

This means that Kant’s proposal is centered around the idea of how the world of states can exist in a condition of constant peace. The closest thing we have today to a world government is the United Nations. The United Nations was established after the second world war and its main purpose amongst others, is to foster peace among nations so, in what ways did Immanuel Kant contribute to the shaping of the International System and the United Nations? To answer this, the first section of this paper will deal with the theories proposed by Immanuel Kant in perpetual peace and the second section will draw references and compare how his theories have been implemented and see the extent to which the international community, under the umbrella of the United Nations, has shaped itself in a way that closely depicts the prescriptions that he

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.