perpetual peace, Kant vs Thucydides,
Perpetual Peace ..Is it a Reality?
September 9, 2013
World Politics The question of how do me men live in peace is an age-old delima. Two significant philosophers , Kant and Thucydides, make some very significant and contrasting views on the nature of peace and man's propensity to go to war. Kant, writing during the 18th century , and Thucydides, an Athenian, commentating some 2000 years earlier during the 5th century BC are coming from very different experiences and historical settings. Kant postulates that it is reasonable to live in peace , in a republic where citizens self rule and have ultimate control of their own destiny, Thucydides, on the other hand, has a much more stark view of peace as he chronicles Athen's maneuvering for power while oppressing a smaller, independent, city-state called Melos. If the possibility of perpetual peace between nations is our subject today then several assumptions must be addressed. First, what is the basis for the concept of morality. Second, who ultimately determines how or when a nation goes to war. Finally, how do nations resolve their difference to avoid war. The reality of perpetual peace, according to Kant, rest squarely on the republican form of government, with a constitution that is under girded by the rule of law, and Thucydides, in his Melian Dialogue, seems to postulate that only equal powers (nationally) can sue for peace; the strong will always want to subjugate the week. Morality, or what is consider right in one’s eye, is a hotly debated subject and in the context of perpetual peace becomes the foundational assumption. Kant comes from the position that morality is reasonable and makes the argument that a constitutional republic is the best safeguard against wars because the citizenry (who are the government) has a self interest to not go to war because they will have to do the fighting themselves and it is expensive and costly. A
September 9, 2013
World Politics The question of how do me men live in peace is an age-old delima. Two significant philosophers , Kant and Thucydides, make some very significant and contrasting views on the nature of peace and man's propensity to go to war. Kant, writing during the 18th century , and Thucydides, an Athenian, commentating some 2000 years earlier during the 5th century BC are coming from very different experiences and historical settings. Kant postulates that it is reasonable to live in peace , in a republic where citizens self rule and have ultimate control of their own destiny, Thucydides, on the other hand, has a much more stark view of peace as he chronicles Athen's maneuvering for power while oppressing a smaller, independent, city-state called Melos. If the possibility of perpetual peace between nations is our subject today then several assumptions must be addressed. First, what is the basis for the concept of morality. Second, who ultimately determines how or when a nation goes to war. Finally, how do nations resolve their difference to avoid war. The reality of perpetual peace, according to Kant, rest squarely on the republican form of government, with a constitution that is under girded by the rule of law, and Thucydides, in his Melian Dialogue, seems to postulate that only equal powers (nationally) can sue for peace; the strong will always want to subjugate the week. Morality, or what is consider right in one’s eye, is a hotly debated subject and in the context of perpetual peace becomes the foundational assumption. Kant comes from the position that morality is reasonable and makes the argument that a constitutional republic is the best safeguard against wars because the citizenry (who are the government) has a self interest to not go to war because they will have to do the fighting themselves and it is expensive and costly. A