Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Systemic causes of war
War has always been a cause of great trouble and suffering for all of humanity. It has existed from the earliest beginnings of man and continues to exist until today. From thousands of years ago and maybe even earlier, there has already been a very long tradition of attempts to end war. For Immanuel Kant and many other thinkers, the most important goal to be achieved in our world is a true and perpetual peace among states and people.
In his 1795 political philosophical essay, Kant begins by setting out the “preliminary articles” to the establishment of an everlasting peace between states. He mentions three basic conditions required for the possibility of a perpetual peace. To him, perpetual peace between states is quite attainable and it is also something which we are morally obliged to make an effort for.
Kant’s essay presents what to do to achieve that perpetual peace and this proposed program has two steps. The first, the “preliminary articles,” are the steps that should be done immediately and as fast as possible. The text of the articles is brief and concise and is as follows:
1. “No treaty of peace shall be regarded as valid, if made with the secret reservation of material for a future war.”
2. “No state having an independent existence – whether it be great or small – shall be acquired by another through inheritance, exchange, purchase or donation.”
3. “Standing armies shall be abolished in course of time.”
4. “No national debts shall be contracted in connection with the external affairs of the state.”
5. “No state shall violently interfere with the constitution and administration of another.”
“No state at war with another shall countenance such modes of hostility as would make mutual confidence impossible in...
... middle of paper ...
... definitely helps in determining what is right and wrong and what should and should not be done. For Kant, moral thought is based on this freedom and enables people to focus on the ultimate goal of perpetual peace.
In addition to being a path to which conflict between states may cease, the preliminary and definitive articles can also provide an environment wherein each person is free to exercise their reason. Kant’s theory has provided two sets of vital articles that may and perhaps should be used to progress towards peace.
Today people are still challenged to take part in this movement toward the desired end and Kant’s essay, more than two hundred and thirteen years old, is still as relevant as ever.
Kant, Immanuel. (1992), Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay, translated with an introduction and notes by M. Campbell Smith, Bristol: Thoemmes Press c1992
The idea of a lasting, ideally global, peace has been present in the minds of people for centuries. The most notable formulation of this is Kant’s vision of perpetual peace. “He saw it as a condition that needed to be maintained by politics between states with governments which represented society and separation of power. From this basic framework stems the idea called “democratic peace theory” (pg. 82). Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) asserts that democracies do not generally fight other democracies because they share common norms and domestic institutions that constrain international, state actors from going to war. Sebastian Rosato states, “In practical terms democratic peace theory provides the intellectual justification for the belief that spreading democracy abroad will perform the dual task of enhancing American national security promoting world peace” (pg. 585).
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
Kant wrote the Critique of Pure Reason but it was hugely misunderstood. The two prefaces to this book try to make things clear. The second preface is longer and elaborates on some thoughts highlighted in the first preface. These two prefaces have many differences including unity of reason and experience and how reason can progress without experience. This short essay focuses on Kant’s position on metaphysics in both prefaces, concentrating on the major differences.
...al philosophy is so acclaimed is because it provides a stringent moral view without loopholes—it’s absolute. Kant was very clever in forming categorical imperatives and valuing good will, universal attributes which can be applied to everyone to determine moral status. As we saw in the course of this paper, his argument is strong against objection because morality is accredited to individuals and their duty and not side effects or resulting actions, things out of our realm to manage when attempting to act morally.
Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth century philosopher whose ideas redefined philosophical views of morality and justice, and provided a base for modern philosophers to argue these ideas. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he argues against Hume’s idea of utilitarianism. Kant also explores the idea of freedom, free action, moral action, and how to determine if our actions are moral by use of the categorical imperative.
...s toward peace”. Proving that being pacifist does not necessarily mean that war is unacceptable, it can also stand for bringing peace by a different point of view.
Immanuel Kant, one of the greatest philosophers in the history of Western Civilization, was also an opponent of perpetual war. Kant’s thinking was probably influenced by the fact that his family were Pietists, a Lutheran sect similar to Quakers.
Kant, Immanuel. Translated by James W. Ellington. 1993. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals3rd Edition. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
Johnson, Robert, Johnson,. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." Stanford University. Stanford University, 23 Feb. 2004. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
Kant is a German philosopher who speaks heavily about the importance of individual duty and autonomy of the will within his work, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Within the text, Kant guides his readers to live a life of meaning and quality rather than one of little substance and insignificance. His approach to life and how one makes decisions is that of a sound person, who believes and understands that in the end you cannot please everyone, and that as long as you are doing your very best to fulfill your duty you are living a life that has worth and meaning; even if in the end the results are not what you had planned or expected. Unlike Bentham and Mill, Kant teaches his readers that expressing good will and preforming one’s moral duties are the most important factors in leading a happy life, because it produces well-rounded members of society who care about others as well as
For centuries, people all over the world have sought the idea of everlasting global peace. The basic framework of this idea was given by Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay “On Perpetual Peace”. In his work, he wrote that peace is not natural to human beings and that is why, governments representing societies and power, through the use of politics have to secure the condition of peace. Immanuel Kant’s essay “On Perpetual Peace” has given the starting point from which “Democratic Peace Theory” originates. With the development of politics and international relations, various forms of “Democratic Peace Theory” have occurred, but there is still one core concept, being the idea that democracy is a cause for peace. According to “Democratic Peace Theory”, democracies are more peace oriented than war, due to the fact that they would lose more if waging war than maintaining economical relations with the specific democracy. Also many scholars use historical data as evidence of how, two democracies wouldn’t fight each other, but in the past there have been few democracies as well as few wars. This essay will mainly focus on the concepts of “Democratic Peace Theory”, how they are relevant to modern times and if in reality peace is maintained only due to the fact that states have democratic regimes.
The Categorical Imperative is a philosophical idea that has some important main ideas. The first one is that one must act as if the maxim that you are following is a universal law (if everyone else did it), secondly one must never treat a person as a way to achieve your goal. The idea of the Categorical Imperative was conceived by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lived from 1724 to 1804 (Rolff). Kant, famous for his other writings in metaphysics, aesthetics, and epistemology, was no amateur in the philosophical world of time, also contributing ideas to political science. In this paper, I will summarize the portion of the article in Reason and Responsibility by Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau that carries Kant’s most important work
How do the terms or implementation of treaties determine peace or conflict decades later? Efforts to build a just and lasting peace are complicated not only because past grievances must be addressed, but future interests must be anticipated-even when such future interests were not identified as the cause of war in the first place. Edward Teller, discussing the Manhattan Project, observed, "No endeavor which is worthwhile is simple in prospect; if it is right, it will be simple in retrospect."2 Only if a nation perceives that continuing observance of the treaty will sustain the state over a long period of time and in changing circumstances, the peace and security promised by the treaty will endure. Machiavelli observed that ". . . fear of loss of the State by a prince or republic will overcome both gratitude and treaties."3