Kantian's Argumentative Analysis

Satisfactory Essays

The main argument that they accept is that actors are rational and thus self interested. This means that individuals have a complete set of preferences and will choose the best one that will benefit them the most every time and will do so based off the information provided. The preference list is also transitive meaning that if you like A more than B, and you like B more than C, than by the transitive property you like A more than C. This also brings about the idea of being self-interested and wanting to assure the survival of yourself while acquiring the most utility possible. However, there was also major disagreements between the two parties, this occurring primarily in the differing ideas about how best to deal with security and cooperation, Kantian's held the believe that the best way to combat security dilemma was through the idea of cooperation in terms of a confederation. In this confederation, states would keep their sovereign rights over their lands, but if one state wants war all the other states can band together and stop it. …show more content…

Which, led to the debate of dyadic vs. monadic, and almost all evidence pointed to two states who share commonalities such as government structure and culture (dyadic) are more peaceful than, one state because of their system is less likely to have conflict (monadic). This did place a hole in the idea that democracies are more peaceful, but supported their claim for a need in cooperation. As well as economic interdependence, which further decreased the likelihood of war because by doing so would actually hurt your own self interest and since the actors are rational it would not be a rational choice for them to make such

Get Access