Kant's First Definitive Article example essay topic

When looking at Kant's notable work, Perpetual Peace, there are many discrepancies as to whether he displays a realist or liberalist doctrine throughout his methodical explanation as to the ways of attaining perpetual peace. In order to properly determine which viewpoint Kant basis the majority of his theories upon, it is imperative that we summarize his argument, identifying both the realist and liberalist aspects of his work, and, from this, determine whether or not his analysis is concurrent with classical liberalism. In order to clearly find the realist and liberal aspects of Kant's argument, it is necessary to first summarize the basic concepts of Perpetual Peace. In section one of his work, Kant explains the preliminary articles for attaining perpetual peace.

The first of the six articles reveals that the causes for making future wars between nations are eliminated by a treaty of peace. Continuing his argument with the second article, Kant sees states as not pieces of property, as known in Latin patrimonium, but, instead, as societies of people who control themselves and are not controlled by other states. When a state is incorporated into another state, it is reduced to just a thing and a piece of territory. Moving to the third article, Kant feels that standing armies threaten other states with their appearance of readiness for war at all times.

More specifically, Kant speculates that the execution of a short war is less expensive than the placement of standing armies on enemy territory. Just like these standing armies, the accumulation of treasure is regarded by other states as a threat of war. Subsequently, in his fourth article, Kant elucidates the fact that while it is reasonable to borrow money in order to build a state's infrastructure, it is clearly unjustifiable to use borrowed money to fund a war. This abuse of money will cause the philanthropic states to join forces with others against the abusive state. Specified in the fifth article, Kant explicitly declares that as long as the internal dissension of a specific state has not reached anarchy, interference by foreign powers would infringe on the rights of that state. Finishing his argument with the sixth article, Kant considers that some trust in the character of the enemy must remain even in times of war, otherwise no peace would ever be made.

Inevitably, a war of this type would turn into a war of extermination, defined in Latin as bellum internecinum. Expanding upon this principle, Kant worries as to the uncertainties of a war of extermination, and, therefore, declares that any situation comparable to this sort should be completely forbidden in all situations of conflict. Finally, concluding his argument, Kant reveals that articles one, five, and six are of such a strict kind that they must be executed immediately, regardless of circumstances. Contrasting with the previous articles, Kant feels that the administrators of such policies as articles two, three, and four have the option to delay these articles' execution without losing sight of the end.

Progressing from the preliminary to the definitive articles for perpetual peace, Kant subsequently explains the necessary qualities for each state's foundation, using his model nation as the idyllic example. In his first article, Kant demands that every state should be republican, with a set of guidelines that follow the principles of the freedom of members of a society, the principles of the dependence of all upon a single common legislation, and the law of citizen's equality. Not only does he say what constitutes a republican state, but also Kant even goes as far as to say that citizens in a republican state would be very cautious when entering into war. This view is rationalized from the understanding that every citizen knows what consequences they may possibly face. Concluding this article, Kant explains that laws can only exist in a republican nation. Moving from the first to the second article, Kant explains that people, as states, should enter into a civil constitution illustrated in his plan for a league of nations.

This league of peace, know in Latin as foetus pacific um, does not look over the power of a state, but only to its security of freedom and every other state in the league. Finishing with his third article, Kant finds that the idea of world citizenship is a supplement to civil and international law that proves essential for the attainment of perpetual peace. For this reason, a violation of an individual's rights in one place is felt throughout the world. With the conclusion of both sets of articles, Kant goes on to explain the guarantee for perpetual peace in the context of his first supplement. These guarantees refer to three phases of public law. In regards to the aspect of civil law, war compels men to submit to public law, and peace comes from forceful laws.

Moving on to the explanation of the law of nations, it is evident that nature employs two means to separate people on the earth: religion and language. Even though these differences are the obvious roots of war, the natural progress of civilizations will change such conflict into peace. Within the realm of the law of world citizenship, it is obvious that the spirit of commerce is incompatible with war. Realizing this inconsistency, states promote peace and prevent war whenever the state's financial situation is threatened. Therefore, human nature guarantees perpetual peace. Complementing the first supplement, Kant includes a second supplement that contains the secret article for perpetual peace.

He declares that philosophers should be able to speak openly without any suppression from the ruling power. This step is necessary for the enlightenment of the business of government. With the end of the supplements, Kant begins the first appendix with an explanation of the opposition between morality and politics with respect to perpetual peace. Kant lays the foundation for his argument with several statements which reveal that morality consists of laws telling us the way we should act, politics contains the practical doctrine of right, and ethics include the theoretical doctrine of right. Applying this to the legal settlement of differences among states, a state's resolution must not be derived from how it expects other states to treat them, but, instead, it should be derived from political wisdom. Coming to a conclusion, Kant forms the belief that politics, by itself, is a difficult art.

Nevertheless, when it is in unison with morality, it is no art at all. Adding a brief thought at the end, Kant demands that the rights of men must be abide by at all cost and never compromised. After wrapping up the first appendix, Kant investigates, throughout the second appendix, the harmony that the transcendental concept of public right establishes between morality and politics. The transcendental formula of public law states that, "all actions relating to the right of other men are unjust if their maxim is not consistent with publicity" (Kant). Belonging to both the doctrines of virtue and the right of man, this formula serves to recognize what is fair to others through an evaluation at three various levels: domestic law, translated in Latin to ius civil atis, international law, and the law of world citizenship.

After evaluating at these three levels, it is evident that a good mark for recognizing the inconsistency of politics with morality is seen in the incompatibility of a state's intentions with the publication of such intentions under international law. Finalizing these views, Kant finds that politics agrees with morality with respect to philanthropy, however, politics does not agree with morality with respect to the rights of men. Therefore, the transcendental principle of public law must end with the public's agreement, even with the state's publicity. Consequentially, the proper task of politics is to make the public satisfied with the state's actions. Looking at his work as a whole, Kant comes to the conclusion that the duty of the state is to make public law that will eventually lead to perpetual peace. When the time required for progress becomes shorter and shorter, perpetual peace can be considered a problem that is approaching its goal.

Using the summary of Kant's work, it is now necessary to analyze Kant's prominent ideas in reference to various realist theorists so that we can properly determine the compatibility of these ideas with classical liberalism. The first of three realist theorists, Niccolo Machiavelli, presents his realist theories within the context of The Prince. Commencing with the second and fifth articles of the preliminary articles for perpetual peace, Kant believes that states should not be controlled by other states as long as the internal dissension has not reached anarchy. Only in this state of anarchy can foreign powers interfere with the rights of that state.

However, Machiavelli trusts that there are only three ways in which " [c] onquered states that have been accustomed to liberty... can be held by the conqueror" (Machiavelli 15). The first way is "to ruin them; second, for the conqueror to go and reside there in person; and the third is to allow them to continue to live under their own laws, subject to a regular tribute, and to create in them a government of a few, who will keep the country friendly to the conqueror" (Machiavelli 15). Enhancing his theory, Machiavelli says that "whoever becomes master of a city that has been accustomed to liberty, and does not destroy it, must himself expect to be ruined by it" (Machiavelli 15). Contradictory to Kant's articles two and five, Machiavelli does not condemn the overtaking of a state by another state. Instead, he says that the only way in which a ruler, or prince, can hold another country is by changing their way of life in one of the three stipulated ways. This theory can be further used to contradict Kant's first definitive article.

Although Kant believes that the ideal form of a government is a republic in which there exists a great importance of the freedom of members in such a society, Machiavelli does not entertain this idea for even a moment. Instead, Machiavelli writes his whole work to show rulers how to take over and alter such republics. Switching to the realist aspect of Kant's work in relation to Machiavelli, it is apparent that a prince "becomes esteemed when... he declares himself openly for or against another, which will always be more creditable to him than to remain neutral" (Machiavelli 18). Taking this idea to a more general level, Kant sees that the proper task of politics is to make the public satisfied with the state's actions. Where Kant believes that it is only important to have people of that nation agree with it's ruler's decisions, Machiavelli believes that the people's respect comes from taking firm action in one way or another.

Changing to Hobbes' piece, On the Natural Condition of Mankind, we now focus on the nature of the individual in reference to the establishment of perpetual peace. Analyzing Kant's definition of civil law within his guarantee for perpetual peace, it is evident that peace comes from forceful laws. However, in Hobbes' idea of war of everyman against everyman, "nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have no place there.

Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice" (Hobbes 221). Through the breakdown of a syllogism, Hobbes infers that in a situation without laws, right or wrong can never be determined. Therefore, Hobbes concludes that order comes from forceful laws, whereas Kant believes that peace comes from forceful laws. Both are similar in meaning but different in their application.

Kant's explanation of the nature of humanity seen in the sixth preliminary article, the second definitive article, and the law of world citizenship seen in the first supplement, shows his direct opposition to the Hobbesian ideal of the individual. Combining these three reference points, Kant believes that some trust in the character of the enemy must remain even in war time, he recommends that people should enter into a constitution like a civil one which would be a league of nations, and he concludes that human nature guarantees perpetual peace. However, through the eyes of Hobbes, competition "makes men invade for gain" which instills in men a "continual fear and danger of violent death" (Hobbes 220). While Kant looks for the civil nature of man, Hobbes sees humans are primarily evil, which makes conflict inherent in human nature. Summarizing these basic differences between Kant and Hobbes, we find that Kant sees the basis for cooperation inherent within each individual, whereas Hobbes insists on the constant conflict of humans rooting from their evil ways. Concluding our analysis with The Melian Dialogue, Thucydides explains the ways in which states should conduct relations with other states.

First of all, within his argument of the law of world citizenship, Kant sees that states promote peace and prevent war whenever the state's financial situation is threatened. Similarly, in his explanation of conflict between the Melians and the Athenians, Hobbes concludes that "conquering [the Melians, the Athenians] shall increase not only the size but the security of [their] empire" (Thucydides 11). Whereas Hobbes plainly concludes that states act in relation to their self-interest, Kant's approach ends with a similar but less obvious deduction. Even though there are similarities between the doctrines of the two theorists, Kant's idea that standing armies threaten other states with their appearance of readiness for war at all times is directly contradicted by Thucydides' narrative dialogue.

When the Melians became open enemies of Athens, Athenians sent forces to Melos that encamped within its territory. While both theorists comment on the placement of forces on enemy territory, they contrast in what they believe and feel is justifiable: Kant placing a negative connotation and Hobbes placing a positive connotation on the legitimacy of these actions. Although Kant shows evidence of realism throughout his work, he alters these realist approaches in such a way that they do not concur with classical realism. Not only are these realist ideas changed from the traditional idea of classical realism, but also there are numerous liberal philosophies that are definitely more dominant in the core of his work. The identification of the realist and liberalist arguments of Kant that have been used in reference to various works of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Thycidides in the previous paragraphs clearly illustrates this philosophy. As quoted in Stanley Hoffmann's book World Disorders, Kant's work is based on "universally and absolutely valid principles capable of establishing both order and justice" (Hoffmann 51).

Whether or not Kant was a classical realist is clear: the trivial realist arguments no where near compare to the substantial amount of liberalist ideas that allows Perpetual Peace to shed a more idealistic and utopian aura to its readers.