Kant’s Philosophy of Perpetual Peace: A Comprehensive Analysis
Waiting:
answer the question What am I allowed to hope? Peace is, according to Kant, the ultimate meaning of progress and history. It also should be the goal of political order. Is the issue that Kant draws the outline of an international law founded on a federation of free states.
A) Background of pacifism Kantian saint pierre and Rousseau:
Until the seventeenth century thinkers as Hobbes believed the war was the natural state of man. There were theories of just war were a way of justifying certain confilictos, to make peace depend on economic interests, and so on. Both Kant and Saint-Pierre and bet on pacifism Rouseau Legal: attempt to demonstrate that war is not fair or reasonable, but the rationale is to eliminate violence. Saint-Pierre defends the creation of a league or federation of Christian princes. Maintained that the army would have to remain. Kant saw the gradual disappearance of the armies a guarantee of peace. For Rousseau the war is between states (tnbn Kant) and not between individuals in a state of nature.
You do not see a way out of war between states and, opposite Saint-Pierre (Christian princes), prefers to talk of a Europe of peoples. Kant Distrust of the princes as those who believe guided by ambition and power.
B) state of nature, social and marital contract in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant:
we have distinguished as between political theory of Plato and Aris. (Organic) and modern philosophers like Hobbes, Kant, Rousseau … (contractual). For Plato and Aris the state is prior to individual, but it is to tell the modern: the isolated indiciduos a social contract created by marital status.
State of nature is one in which man was before the state existed, right, authority …. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant were raised as we were and we lived in a state of nature and that we get out of the llevoo to form a civil state is a state governed by a legal system tried to answer the question by the passage of state of nature to civil status. For this step possible is needed is a social contract: an agreement in which individuals transfer their rights to a ruler, or community representatives entrera to leave the state of nature. Hobbes making Kant’s description of humanity in a state of nature and law of war strongest of all. Hobbes believed that the men decided to leave the state of nature to escape the misery of war while Kant understand it is a moral costs should be pushing the man to leave the state of barbarism. The social contract by leaving the state of nature in Kant implies respect for individual liberty as this is a natural right as both Kant and Rousseau, submission to the sovereign authority responsible for enforcing laws without autroidad this sometiemiento the state would disintegrate. He agreed with Hobbes that because according to both the nature of man is bad and needs an absolute coercive power of law enforcement. Civi state function according to Kant is to ensure colibertad: coexistence of individual freedom or liberty negative politics. He opposes aristotelico palnteamiento he understood that the mission of the state is the happiness of individuals. Kant boasts a liberal approach akin to Locke and contrary to Greek paternalism. For Aristotle, the state’s role was to educate the citizen for happiness and for Plato, the state responsible for ensuring the virtue of citizens. This type of ethical states (modern Islamic theocracy and remnants of communism) are opposed to modern Western democarcias where the state is first and unika the guarantor of freedom negative politics.C)
Perpetual Peace
Kant and stable final three articles for peace Pertua are the legal conditions make peace possible. The first article states that the mode of government that most favors the attainment of peace is the constitution Repubblicana. Defense is characterized by three fundamental principles:
1.Libertad
original and inalienable right as for Rousseau.
2.Igualdad
says that all are equal before the law except the sovereign who must enforce them without compulsion which the government would not be possible .. Kant is closer to Hobbes than to Rousseau. Understand that there can be no civil desovediencia.
3.Citizenship
For Rousseau all individuals are citizens entitled alegislar while Kant no. Caracterizza the republican constitution as being mediated by the principle of representation and separation of powers. The principle of representativeness alienates prorpuesta Kant of democracy Durect (asamnblearia) of ruseau that Kant is the but of depsotismos. Such a prince of representativeness Kant alienates the absolutism of Hobbes. Kant advocates the separation of powers of Montesquieu for his non-compliance would make the system degenerate into despotism. It approaches the modern representative democracies. Even so chooses Kant monarchy instead of democracy as the most appropriate system to introduce appropriate reforms to move towards the republican constitution. The second article talks about the final formation of a federation of republican states, in the line of Rousseau. The third article argues for a cosmopolitan order copnsonancia the universalist ideals of the Enlightenment.
The additional second (secret item) forces us to consider the relationship between the role of the philosopher and the ruler in politics. For Plato the good political order would arrive when the philosopher from becoming king. Kant is very far from it, for it must be subject to sovereign can not make use of civil disobedience and is only allowed to advise the ruler. The president is obliged to guarantee freedom of expresin. The first appendix deals with the relationships between ethics and politics on perpetual peace. Kant’s thesis is not worth the maquiavleo approach to subject the ethics to politics (end justifies the means) but it is necessary to reconcile ethics and politics. For Kant, the policy should be clever as serpents but guileless as doves.