Conscience is the voice of the soul.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Firmly convinced as I am that nothing on this
earth
is worth purchase at the price of human blood,
and that there is no more liberty anywhere
than in the heart of the just man,
I feel, however, that it is natural for people of courage,
who were born free,
to prefer an honorable death to dull servitude.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
All trade is in its essence advantageous-
even to that party to whom it is least so.
All war is in its essence ruinous;
and yet the great employments of government
are to treasure up occasions of war,
and to put fetters upon trade.
Jeremy Bentham
When the worst comes to the worst,
peace may always be had by some unessential sacrifice.
Jeremy Bentham
If only freedom is granted,
enlightenment is almost sure to .follow.
Immanuel Kant
Dare to know!
Have courage to use your own reason!
Immanuel Kant
Reason, from its throne of supreme legislating
authority,
absolutely condemns war as a legal recourse
and makes a state of peace a direct duty,
even though peace cannot be established or secured
except by a compact among nations.
Immanuel Kant
Abbé Charles-Irénée Castel
de Saint-Pierre (1658-1743) was educated at a Jesuit college, where he studied
the classics, logic, ethics, physics, mathematics, and metaphysics. He joined a
strict order of monks, but he had to leave it for reasons of health. He moved
to Paris in 1680 and was at court from 1693 to 1718, when he was expelled from
the French Academy for refusing to approve of the title "Great" for
Louis XIV. He studied both the theory and practice of politics and was
particularly influenced by Plato, Bodin, Machiavelli, Grotius, Pufendorf,
Richelieu, Doria, and Hobbes. Paix Perpetuelle was first published in
1712, but he expanded that sketch to a two-volume edition the next year, which
was translated into English in 1714 as A Project for Settling an Everlasting
Peace in Europe. He added a third volume in 1717 and published abridgements
in 1729 and 1738. Saint-Pierre tried to gain publicity for his effort by giving
credit to France's king Henri IV for the "grand design" that was
actually written by Sully years later in 1638. He attended the peace conference
at Utrecht in 1713 as the secretary for the Abbé Polignac, one of the three
French plenipotentiaries. This gave him first-hand experience of the
peace-making process and stimulated him to work on his plan that could make
peace perpetual.
Saint-Pierre attempted to
use the philosophical methodology of Descartes in order to gain certainty by
means of intuition and deduction. His first idea had been to include all the
nations of the world; but then he limited his confederation to Europe so that
the whole project would not seem impossible. Examining the various means which
could prevent war among European nations, he inferred that a federation of
states is the best solution. Whereas Hobbes showed that for the protection and
benefit of individuals there must be unity in the state, Saint-Pierre went a
step further in reasoning that to safeguard the peace between nations there
must be a unifying federation. Although accused by Rousseau of unrealistically
expecting people to be rational, Saint-Pierre did recognize that passions
control the actions of most people. Therefore to overcome motives of
self-interest the fear of violence must be used to enforce law and justice.
Foreshadowing Rousseau's ideas, he posited that society protects people from
violence by a contract and can express its sovereign will by establishing a
permanent federation among the states of Europe.
Saint-Pierre's plan took
the form of an elaborate treaty divided into articles that were fundamental,
important, and useful. States of various forms of government could be in the
federation, though most at this time were monarchies. The laws founded on
justice were to be equal and reciprocal for all. Saint-Pierre pointed to the
confederations of German and Helvetian states and the United Provinces of the
Netherlands to show the practical advantages of union. He began his plan with
peace and contrasted this to the French war aims that would have initiated the
biased plan of Sully.
Saint-Pierre proposed
twelve fundamental articles. First, all the Christian sovereigns of Europe shall
form a permanent union for peace and security, endeavoring also to make
treaties with Muslim sovereigns, and the sovereigns are to be represented by
deputies in a perpetual senate in a free city. Second, the European society
shall not interfere with the governments except to preserve them from seditious
rebellions, and he even went so far as to guarantee hereditary sovereignties.
Third, the Union shall send commissioners to investigate conspiracies and
revolts and may send troops to punish the guilty according to the laws. Fourth,
territories shall remain as they are unless three-fourths of the Union votes
for a change, and no treaties may be made without the "advice and
consent" of the Union. Fifth, no sovereign shall possess more than one state.
Sixth, Spain and France shall remain in the house of Bourbon. These previous
five articles have been criticized for not allowing a natural process of
change. Seventh, chambers of commerce shall be maintained, and each sovereign
must suppress robbers and pirates or pay reparation; if necessary the Union may
assist them in this.
Eighth, no sovereign shall
take up arms except against a declared enemy of the European society.
Complaints shall be discussed and mediated by the senate in the city of peace.
The Union shall defend the sovereigns who agree with its decisions. After at
least fourteen nations have joined the confederation, any sovereign refusing to
join is to be declared an enemy by the rest of Europe, which is to make war on
it until the state joins or is dispossessed. The ninth article specified that
the senate was to represent with one delegate each the following 24 powers:
France, Spain, England, Holland, Savoy, Portugal, Bavaria, Venice, Genoa,
Florence, Switzerland, Lorraine, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, the papal states,
Muscovy, Austria, Courland, Prussia, Saxony, Palatine, Hanover, and
ecclesiastical electors. Obviously this scheme allowed extra votes for the
divided German and Italian states. Tenth, each state shall contribute to the
expenses of the society in proportion to its revenues. Eleventh, the senate
shall take up questions after a plurality vote, and three-fourths is needed for
a decision. Twelfth, none of the fundamental articles may be altered except by
a unanimous vote of all members.
In the important articles
Saint-Pierre gave more details he recommended such as Utrecht as the seat of
the senate, which shall have an ambassador in every province of two million
people. No sovereign shall keep more than 6,000 soldiers in his nation. Enemies
of the union shall be punished with death or life imprisonment, and anyone
reporting a conspiracy shall be given a reward. Every year on the same day
sovereigns shall renew their oath to the Union. If a state has no succeeding
sovereign, the Union may regulate the succession or allow a republic to be
formed.
The useful articles are
even more specific. The commander-in-chief of the federal forces shall not
belong to any sovereign family. Rotating senators shall preside week by week.
The four standing committees on politics, diplomacy, finances, and war are to
be supplemented by committees of reconciliation, which shall adjust
difficulties or report them to the senators for their decision. Freedom of
religion is allowed. The Union may agree on weights, measures, and coins. The
senate may mediate between conflicts of non-members and support the sovereign
who accepts its offer. The European Union shall encourage Asia to establish a
permanent society also.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a
fascinating individual, whose unorthodox ideas and passionate prose caused a
flurry of interest in 18th-century France; his republican sentiments for
liberty, equality, and brotherhood led eventually to the French Revolution. He
was born on June 28, 1712, but his mother died in giving birth to him. His
father had him reading romances and classical histories such as Plutarch before
apprenticing him to an engraver. Rousseau loved to walk in nature; frustrated
at being locked outside the city gates of Geneva at nightfall, at the age of
sixteen he left his home to wander on his own. He was guided by a Catholic
priest to Madame de Warens, who took him in for about ten years and eventually
became his mistress. Rousseau studied music and devised a new system of musical
notation, which was rejected by the Academy of Sciences. Throughout his life
Rousseau often earned his living by copying music. In Paris in the 1740s he
entered literary society and wrote both the words and music for an opera Les
Muses Galantes. Rousseau lived for thirty years with an uneducated servant
girl, who bore him five children, according to his Confessions, but all
of them were given to an orphanage in infancy.
In 1749 Rousseau burst into
prominence by winning an essay contest on the theme: "Has the progress of
the arts and sciences contributed more to the corruption or purification of
morals?" Rousseau criticized social institutions for having corrupted the
essential goodness of nature and the human heart. In his "Discourse on the
Origin of Inequality" he elaborated on the process of how social
institutions must have developed into the extreme inequities of aristocratic
France, where the nobility and the clergy lived in luxury while the poor
peasants had to pay most of the taxes. In his "Discourse on Political
Economy" he suggested remedies for these injustices. In 1756 he retreated
to a simple country life and wrote a romantic novel La Nouvelle Héloise,
which won the hearts of many. Some historians consider Rousseau the initiator
of the romantic rebellion in art and literature.
Rousseau's two greatest
works were published in 1762-The Social Contract and Emile or On
Education. For Rousseau society itself is an implicit agreement to live
together for the good of everyone with individual equality and freedom. However,
people have enslaved themselves by giving over their power to governments,
which are not truly sovereign when they do not promote the general will.
Rousseau believed that only the will of all the people together granted
sovereignty. Various forms of government are instituted to legislate and
enforce the laws. He wrote that the first duty of the legislator is to make the
laws conform to the general will, and the first rule of public economy is to
administer justice in conformity with the laws. His natural political
philosophy echoes the way of Lao-zi, because he suggested that the greatest
talent of a ruler is to disguise his power to render it less odious by
conducting the state so peaceably that it seems to need no conductors. Rousseau
valued his citizenship in Geneva, where he was born, and he was one of the
first strong voices for democratic principles. He believed there could be no
liberty without virtue and no virtue without citizens.
Rousseau explained that
citizens depend upon education. In Emile, a revolutionary book in
educational theory, Rousseau described how a boy can learn most naturally by
direct experience. Rousseau recommended awakening the inner goodness that comes
from the heart and warned against the evil contrivances of "civilized"
society.
Where are there laws, and where are they respected?
Everywhere you have seen only individual interest
and men's passions reigning under this name.
But the eternal laws of nature and order do exist.
For the wise man, they take the place of positive law.
They are written in the depth of his heart
by conscience and reason.
It is to these that he ought to enslave himself
in order to be free.
The only slave is the man who does evil,
for he always does it in spite of himself.
Freedom is found in no form of government;
it is in the heart of the free man.
He takes it with him everywhere.
The vile man takes his servitude everywhere.1
Yet Rousseau was not
against positive law. On the contrary, laws protect those who are free from the
vile man who violates them. We are free within the law, but again the laws must
be in harmony with reason and the general good.
Rousseau's political
writings stirred up controversy, and threatened by the established powers, he
fled into exile to Prussia and also visited David Hume in England. Later he was
able to return to France. In 1768 a populist revolt protested for more rights
against an oligarchy of twenty-five councilors in Geneva. Rousseau counseled
against violence but encouraged them in their struggle and predicted that in ten
or twenty years the times would be far more favorable to the cause of a
representative party. In fact the American Revolution was about ten years away
and the French Revolution about twenty. Rousseau discussed many different forms
of government and indicated that there are various factors to consider in
deciding on the best form of government for any given state. Generally he
favored "elective aristocracy"-not hereditary but republican. In his Constitutional
Project for Corsica he advised them to adopt democratic government and to
abolish hereditary nobility. Consulted on Poland's government, he recommended
the gradual enfranchisement of the serfs and a multi-level civil service system
whereby one could advance by merit.
In pain often from a
prostate disorder, Rousseau's moodiness and paranoia of other influential
people increased in his later years. Fearing distortions of his life by others,
which actually were written later, Rousseau tried to tell all honestly in his Confessions
and other autobiographical works. He died on July 2, 1778.
Rousseau's writing about a
federation to establish lasting peace was actually a summary and critique of
the plan devised by the Abbé de Saint-Pierre. In 1754 an admirer of the
late Abbé, Madame Dupin, suggested to Rousseau that he bring to life the good
ideas in Saint-Pierre's writings. In his Confessions Rousseau gave his
reasons for taking up the project.
Not being confined to the function of a translator,
I was at liberty sometimes to think for myself;
and I had it in my power to give such a form to my work,
that many important truths would pass in it
under the name of the Abbé de Saint-Pierre,
much more safely than under mine.2
He also explained why he
felt Saint Pierre's ideas were not effective.
In the offices of all the ministers of state
the Abbé de St. Pierre had ever been considered
as a kind of preacher rather than a real politician,
and he was suffered to say what he pleased,
because it appeared that nobody listened to him.3
It is noteworthy that out
of the twenty-three volumes of Saint-Pierre's works Rousseau selected
"Perpetual Peace" for his first essay, which was published at Geneva
in 1761.
Rousseau began his
description of Saint-Pierre's project by expressing the feelings in his heart.
Never did the mind of man conceive a scheme nobler,
more beautiful, or more useful than that
of a lasting peace between all the peoples of Europe.
Never did a writer better deserve a respectful hearing than he
who suggests means for putting that scheme in practice.
What man, if he has a spark of goodness,
but must feel his heart glow within him at so fair a prospect?
Who would not prefer the illusions of a generous spirit,
which overleaps all obstacles, to that dry, repulsive reason
whose indifference to the welfare of mankind
is ever the chief obstacle to all schemes for its attainment?
I see in my mind's eye all men joined in the bonds of love.
I call before my thoughts a gentle and peaceful brotherhood,
all living in unbroken harmony,
all guided by the same principles,
all finding their happiness in the happiness of all.4
Yet Rousseau was aware of
the need for hard reasoning, and he promised to prove his assertions and asked
the reader not to deny what one cannot refute.
Although governments have
been instituted to control private wars, Rousseau lamented the national wars,
which are a thousand times worse. In "The Origin of Inequality" he
had described how individuals joined together to avoid conflicts, but the
larger bodies reverted to even more disastrous conflicts.
Hence arose the national wars, battles, murders, and reprisals
which make nature tremble and shock reason;
and all those horrible prejudices which rank
the honor of shedding human blood among the virtues.
The most decent men learned to consider it
one of their duties to murder their fellow men;
at length men were seen to massacre each other
by the thousands without knowing why;
more murders were committed on a single day of fighting
and more horrors in the capture of a single city
than were committed in the state of nature
during whole centuries over the entire face of the earth.5
To remedy these dangers
Rousseau argued that a federal form of government must be devised to unite
nations, as nations unite individuals, under the authority of law. In his time
this type of government was fairly new; but he noted that it did exist in the
Germanic Body, the Helvetic League, and the States General of the Netherlands,
and the ancients had the Greek Amphictyons, the Etruscan Lucumonies, Latin
feriae, and the city leagues of the Gauls.
Rousseau pointed out that
Europe has much in common-the history of the Roman Empire, the Christian
religion, geography, blood-ties, commerce, arts, colonies, and printing. Yet
the violence in practice contradicts the moral ideals and rhetoric of governments.
Treaties are temporary and very unstable; there are few or no common agreements
on public law; and in conflicts between nations might makes right as weakness
is taken for wrong. Nevertheless the boundaries of countries remain fairly
stable because of the natural conditions of geography and culture. No one
country is powerful enough ever to conquer all the others; but if nations ally
together for conquest, they end up fighting among themselves. The Germanic
states and the Treaty of Westphalia stabilize the international situation. The
conflicts, which do continually agitate, never seem to result in any advantage
to the sovereigns. Commerce and economics tend to keep the power of states
fairly balanced. Since it is so difficult for one nation to conquer others, it
is easy to see that the federation would be able to force any ambitious ruler
to abide by the terms of the league.
Rousseau delineated the
following four necessary conditions for the success of the federation: every
important power must be a member; the laws they legislate must be binding; a
coercive force must be capable of compelling every state to obey the common
resolves; and no member may be allowed to withdraw. His plan proposed five
articles. The first establishes a permanent alliance with a congress so that
all conflicts may be settled and terminated by arbitration or judicial
pronouncement. The second article determines which nations shall have a vote,
how the presidency shall pass from one to another, and how the contribution quotas
shall be raised to provide for common expenses. The third declares that
existing boundaries shall be permanent. The fourth specifies how violators
shall be banned and forced to comply by means of the arms of all the
confederates. The fifth article recommends a majority vote at the start, but
three-quarters after five years, and unanimity to change the articles.
Rousseau explained how the
six motives which lead to war are all removed by this plan.
These motives are:
either to make conquests,
or to protect themselves from aggression,
or to weaken a too powerful neighbor,
or to maintain their rights against attack,
or to settle a difference which has defied friendly negotiation,
or, lastly, to fulfill some treaty obligation.6
Actually the federation
makes every purpose easier to accomplish except the first, that of conquest,
which it most effectively deters by gathering all powers against the aggressor.
Also under the alliance a country need not fear a powerful neighbor, because
the alliance together has far greater power.
Sovereigns should not
complain of losing their prerogatives, because the federation merely is forcing
them to be just. Rousseau estimated that nations would save approximately half
of their military budgets. He enumerated the many evils and dangers of the
prevailing conditions in Europe such as injustice because of might, insecurity
of nations, military expenses, attacks, no guarantee for international
agreements, no safe or inexpensive means of obtaining justice when wronged,
risk and inconvenience of wars, loss of trade during crises, and general
impoverishment and lack of security. The benefits of arbitration are: certainty
of settling disputes peacefully, abolition of the causes of disputes, personal
security for rulers, fulfillment of agreements between rulers, freedom of
trade, smaller military expenses, increase in population, agriculture, and
public wealth and happiness.
Rousseau wrote a brief
critique of Saint-Pierre's project, but it was not published until 1782, four
years after he died. First he wondered why Saint-Pierre's plan had not been
adopted, and he suggested that it was because the princes were short-sighted in
their ambition and greed for power. They were too proud to submit themselves to
arbitration; their wisdom was not equal to their confidence in good fortune in
the risks of war. They were too blinded by their self interest to see the
wisdom of the general good. Rousseau recounted how Henri IV had tried to
use self-interest with the powers of Europe to mold together a commonwealth,
but he died. Rousseau finally concluded that the only way a federation could be
established would be by means of a revolution; but sensing the violence
in that, he considered it as much to be feared as to be desired.
Jeremy Bentham was born
February 15, 1748 in London and died there in 1832. He was the son of an
attorney, and by the age of four he was reading and beginning to study Latin.
He gained a degree at Oxford in 1763, and becoming a lawyer, he criticized
Blackstone, an influential legal thinker. To his father's chagrin Jeremy never
practiced law or traditional politics. Instead he developed his own legal
philosophy, encouraged social reform, and wrote thousands of pages codifying
laws. His most famous work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation was circulated among his friends and finally published in 1789.
A practical thinker, he founded the utilitarian philosophy which seeks
"the greatest happiness of the greatest number." He explained his
fundamental concept as follows:
By utility is meant that property in any object
whereby it tends to produce benefit,
advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness,
or to prevent the happening of mischief,
pain, evil, or unhappiness
to the party whose interest is considered:
if that party be the community in general,
then the happiness of the community:
if a particular individual,
then the happiness of the individual.7
By means of this
"hedonic calculus" Bentham attempted to measure the positive and
negative consequences of any decision. He went beyond a simple hedonism by
describing seven dimensions of the pleasure or pain to bring a qualitative
evaluation into the quantification. Thus one must consider the intensity,
duration, certainty, and nearness of the pleasure or pain. In addition the
results of the pleasure or pain can be estimated in terms of fecundity and
purity; fecundity means whether there will be further pleasures or pains later,
and purity whether pleasures or pains are likely to be followed by their
opposites. Finally one must consider the extent in terms of how many people may
be affected. Bentham used these principles in deciding on the appropriate
punishments for various crimes. In prison reform he sought to reform morals,
preserve health, invigorate industry, and spread instruction. In 1792 he was
made a French citizen, and he advised that new government as well as that of
the United States of America. He influenced many who were called
"Benthamites," particularly James Mill and his son John Stuart Mill,
who wrote on Utilitarianism.
Bentham's essay "A
Plan for a Universal and Perpetual Peace" was published a year after his
death in The Principles of International Law, but he wrote it in 1789.
Bentham declared that the whole world is his domain and that the press is his
only tool. Everyone suffers from war, and the wise consider it the chief cause
of suffering. Bentham's plan has two main propositions-to reduce military
forces in Europe and to emancipate colonies. He emphasized the importance of a
peace proposal, even if the world is not ready for it, because in that case
there is a great need for ideas on peace. He asked for the prayers of
Christians, and for the welfare of all civilized nations he had three
goals-"simplicity of government, national frugality, and peace."
Bentham proposed that it is
not in the interest of Great Britain or France to have colonies, alliances, nor
a large navy. Perpetual treaties ought to limit troops and establish a common
court of judicature to decide differences. However, Bentham was clearly
pacifistic in stipulating that the court not be armed with coercive powers. As
he stated later on, he relied upon the power of public opinion. For this reason
he was especially perturbed by the secrecy of British foreign affairs, such
that he had to read the Leyden Gazette to get any news about British
diplomacy, as there was none in the home press. Therefore he argued strongly
against secrecy in international relations. He also complained that newspapers
always took the side of their own nation. "It is that we are always in the
right, without a possibility of being otherwise. Against us other nations have
no rights."8
The colonies cause nothing
but trouble for England and France and should be given up. This is in the
interest of the mother country because of the danger of war, military expense,
corruption by patronage, and complication of government. He cited Gibraltar and
the East Indies specifically. It is also better for the colonies themselves to
be self-governing. Neither are alliances in the interest of Great Britain,
because they lead to wars; also treaties to give advantage in trade are
artificial economically and are not useful in the long run. The naval forces
need only be strong enough to defend commerce against pirates. The pacification
treaties, which are to limit the number of troops, are to be publicly
announced. Bentham described the folly of attempting conquest and the madness
of war. In modern times it is useless to the people. Bentham believed that
trade is always advantageous to both parties, but war is ruinous.
Establishing a judicial
court is in the interest of all. Bentham recommended a Congress of deputies
from each country that should be public in its proceedings. Its power is in
reporting its decisions to public opinion. Here Bentham appeared to be
excessively idealistic in comparison to Saint-Pierre and Rousseau, who felt the
need for enforcement. Bentham naively believed that if secrecy were given up,
the public would no longer support wars. He pointed to the example of the
Swedish soldiers, who refused to fight Russia. His pacifist ideas are not
wrong, but they would depend upon an enlightened public opinion. He declared
that the plunging of a nation into war against its will by ministers is not
only mischievous but unconstitutional. He pointed out that punishing the
authors of war does little good for the people of the nation. Since the
warmakers cannot be punished effectively, they ought to be abandoned by the
people. However, Bentham considered this not possible in his time. In war
individual crimes are greatly multiplied; yet they win the approval of people.
Since ministers are not deterred from misconduct, they are easily seduced by
ambition and greed into wars, especially when shielded by secrecy.
Bentham's plan is quite
sketchy and obviously not comprehensive, but he did show the usefulness of
disarmament and the dangers of colonialism and secrecy. He sensed the power of
public opinion but also saw how effectively it was squelched in his time. He
did not really present the executive and legislative powers for a federal
system, as did Saint-Pierre and Rousseau; but he did establish the principles
of an international judiciary and open public opinion on international affairs.
Immanuel Kant was born on
April 22, 1724 at Königsberg in East Prussia and lived his whole life there.
His parents were pious and emphasized inward morality. In 1740 he entered the
University of Königsberg in theology, but he also studied physics. After his
father died in 1746, he worked for nine years as a family tutor. He lectured at
the university on physics, mathematics, logic, metaphysics, moral philosophy,
geography, and natural sciences. In 1770 Kant was appointed to the chair of
logic and metaphysics. After working on it for a decade, in 1781 he published
his magnum opus, the Critique of Pure Reason. In this book Kant
analyzed how the mind itself structures our understanding of reality by
conceptual categories. More books followed, and Kant is considered by many to
be the greatest philosopher of the age of enlightenment. Kant held that God,
freedom, and immortality are transcendental ideas essential to the moral life.
In his ethical works Kant
formulated the categorical imperative as a guide for conduct: "Act
according to the maxim which can at the same time make itself a universal
law."9 Thus a person of good will always treats others as an end, not as a
means. Kant found that two things filled his mind with increasing wonder and
awe: the starry heavens above and the moral law within. His lectures were
popular, and he followed a regular routine. His daily walks were so punctual
that the people of Königsberg could set their watches by his regular
appearance. The only time he was known to have missed his daily walk was when
he became absorbed in reading Rousseau's Emile. He died on February 12,
1804, and his last words were: "It is good."
Kant's philosophy had a
critical perspective, and he showed how by using higher human reason and
justice we can transcend the brutal strife and arguments of war.
Without the control of criticism,
reason is, as it were, in a state of nature,
and can only establish its claims and assertions by war.
Criticism, on the contrary, deciding all questions
according to the fundamental laws of its own institution,
secures to us the peace of law and order,
and enables us to discuss all differences
in the more tranquil manner of a legal process.
In the former case, disputes are ended by victory,
which both sides may claim
and which is followed by a hollow armistice;
in the latter, by a sentence, which,
as it strikes at the root of all speculative differences,
ensures to all concerned a lasting peace.10
In The Science of Right Kant
discussed the right of nations and international law and also the universal
right of mankind. Ethically, people ought to be treated as ends in themselves
and not mechanically as a means to some end. Therefore the ruler has no right
to treat his people as objects for some warlike purpose. The people do not owe
a duty to the sovereign; in Kant's view rather the sovereign has a duty to the
people.
As such they must give their free consent,
through their representatives,
not only to the carrying on of war generally,
but to every separate declaration of war;
and it is only under this limiting condition
that the state has a right to demand
their services in undertakings so full of danger.11
Kant defined three rights
of peace: neutrality, guarantee, and alliance. Neutrality is the right to
remain at peace when a war is nearby. Guarantee is "the right to have
peace secured so that it may continue when it has been concluded."12
Alliance is the right of federation, that states may defend themselves
in common against attack. However, there is no right of alliance for external
aggression or internal aggrandizement.
Kant applied the
categorical imperative to the relations of states and rejected any action or
policy which would make peace among the nations impossible. Kant pointed out
that nations, like individuals, must enter into a legal state, in this case, a
union of states, which is the only way to establish peace and the public right
of nations. Thus a permanent congress of nations must eventually become
practical so that differences may be settled by means of a civil process
instead of by barbarous war. Kant based the right to a universal peaceful union
of all nations on the juridical principle of legal justice rather than on the
moral ideal of the philanthropic or ethical principles. Because all people
originally share the soil of the earth, they have a right to associate with
each other. Even though perpetual peace may not be real yet, Kant emphasized
that we must work to realize it, as it is our duty. He concluded,
The universal and lasting establishment of peace
constitutes not merely a part,
but the whole final purpose and end
of the science of right
as viewed within the limits of reason.13
In his "Idea for a
Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View" Kant stated that
Nature forces people to a cosmopolitan solution, making a league of nations the
inevitable result of social evolution. Until then humans must suffer the
cruelty of conflicts. The answer lies in a moral order, which can only be
brought about through education. This enlightenment requires a commitment of
heart to the good that is clearly understood. He lamented that rulers spend
little money on public education, because they spend it paying for past and
future wars. Kant predicted that the ever-growing war debt (which was new in
his time) would eventually make war impractical economically. He foresaw that
this and the value of interstate commerce would prepare the way eventually for
an international government, even though there had never been one in world
history. Looking toward the goal of world citizenship, he suggested that the philosophical
historian ought to note how various nations and governments have contributed to
this goal.
Kant felt that war is the
greatest obstacle to morality and that the preparation for war is the greatest
evil; therefore we must renounce war. "The morally practical reason utters
within us its irrevocable veto: There shall be no war."14 Yet
without a cosmopolitan constitution and the wisdom to submit ourselves
voluntarily to its constraint, war is inevitable. The obstacles of ambition,
love of power, and avarice, particularly of those in authority, stand in the
way. Again education must foster the building of character in accordance with
moral principles. The full realization of our destiny, the sovereignty of God
on Earth, ultimately depends not on governments but on justice and conscience
within us.
Kant's major work on peace
entitled Perpetual Peace was published in 1795. That year in the
separate treaty of Basel, Prussia ceded France territory west of the Rhine so
that it could partition Poland with Russia and Austria. Kant was so indignant
at this that he wrote Perpetual Peace as a just treaty that could be
signed by nations. He stated six preliminary propositions for a perpetual peace
among states:
1. No treaty of peace shall be held valid
in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war.
2. No independent states, large or small,
shall come under the dominion of another state
by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation.
3. Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished.
4. National debts shall not be contracted
with a view to the external friction of states.
5. No state shall by force interfere with
the constitution or government of another state.
6. No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility
which would make mutual confidence
in the subsequent peace impossible:
such are the employment of assassins,
poisoners, breach of capitulation,
and incitement to treason in the opposing state.15
The reasons for these are
fairly obvious. He added that a state has no right to wage a punitive war,
because just punishment must come from a superior authority and not an equal.
In introducing the three
definitive articles, Kant observed that the state of nature tends toward
conflict and war; therefore peace must be actively established and maintained
by a civil state. Civil constitutions are of three levels: the law of persons,
the law of nations, and the law of world citizenship.
The first definitive
article states, "The civil constitution of every state should be
republican."16 By this Kant meant that the laws must be applied to
everyone universally and fairly-in other words, government by law, not by
favored men. Thus the principles of freedom, common legislation, and equality
must pertain. He hoped that requiring the citizens' consent to declare war
would prevent its devastation, because it is usually the people, not the ruler,
who sacrifices and suffers. By republican Kant meant representative of the
people, but not necessarily democracy, which he considered more likely to be
despotic than representative government by one (autocracy) or a few
(aristocracy). In a pure democracy it is not possible to separate the execute
power from the legislative function.
The second definitive
article states, "The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of
free states."17 This constitution establishes the rights of states through
a league of nations. Kant noted that Grotius, Pufendorf, Vattel, and many other
irritating comforters have been cited to justify war; but their code cannot
have legal force. Victory in war goes to the stronger, but it does not settle
what is right. At its conclusion a peace treaty ends that war; but to end all
wars forever there must be a league of peace. The more republics associate with
each other, the more practical a federation becomes. In the federation a
supreme legislative, executive, and judicial power may be established to
reconcile the differences between nations peaceably. But if nations do not
acknowledge these supreme powers, then how can they safeguard their rights?
Using unilateral maxims through force leads to "perpetual peace in the
vast grave that swallows both the atrocities and their perpetrators."18
Therefore states must give up their savage (lawless) freedom in order to find a
greater freedom and security within the constraints of public law.
The third definitive
article states, "The law of world citizenship shall be limited to
conditions of universal hospitality."19 Everyone has the right not to be
treated as an enemy when arriving in another land. How prophetic Kant was when
he wrote, "The narrower or wider community of the peoples of the earth has
developed so far that a violation of rights in one place is felt throughout the
world."20 Thus he did not consider a law of world citizenship high-flown
nor exaggerated but rather indispensable for human rights and perpetual peace.
The guarantee for perpetual
peace, for Kant, is the design and process of world history which we call
providence. People have spread throughout the Earth and have been forced to
develop lawful relations with each other. States were formed for defense
against violations, and man has been forced to be good for the sake of others
by laws to keep the peace. Although differences of language and religion have
kept states separate, competition nevertheless maintains an equilibrium, and
commerce has made peace far preferable to war.
Kant argued that politics
must eventually be moral, because the moral laws are eternal and transcendent
of political stratagems. Like Bentham, Kant emphasized that justice must be
public and open to scrutiny. He reasoned that political maxims must be able to
be public in order to be legitimate; those which need publicity in order to
succeed are both right and politically advantageous, because they must be in
accord with the public's universal good. Therefore it is our duty to publicly
promote those policies which lead to the universal good of lasting peace.
Sanderson BECK
1. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Emile or On Education tr. Allan Bloom, p. 473.
2. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Confessions tr. W. Conyngham Mallory, p. 635-636.
3. Ibid., p. 661.
4. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe
tr. C. E. Vaughan.
5. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Second Discourse tr. Roger D. and Judith R. Masters, p. 161.
6. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe
tr. C. E. Vaughan.
7. Bentham, Jeremy, The Principles of Morals and Legislation, p. 2.
8. Bentham, Jeremy, A Plan for an Universal and Perpetual Peace in Jeremy
Bentham by Charles W. Everett, p. 221.
9. Kant, Immanuel, Foundations of the Metaphysic of Morals, Second
Section 436 tr. Lewis White Beck, p. 63.
10. Kant, Immanuel, The Critique of Pure Reason tr. J. M. D. Meiklejohn, p. 222.
11. Kant, Immanuel, The
Science of Right 55 tr. W. Hastie.
12. Ibid., 69.
13. Ibid., Conclusion.
14. Ibid.
15. Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace 343-346 tr. Lewis White Beck et
al, p. 85-89.
16. Ibid., 349, p. 93.
17. Ibid., 354, p. 98.
18. Ibid., 357, p. 101.
19. Ibid., 357, p. 102.
20. Ibid., 360, p. 105.