Understanding Perpetual Peace
From the discussion on December 29:
Paul A. Rahe ... I do not mean to endorse Wilsonian internationalism. That doctrine, rooted in a distortion of the thinking of Immanuel Kant, is as mad as the doctrine embraced by the sect of libertarians that I am discussing. It supposes that there can be a war to end all wars and that the world can be made safe once and for all for democracy. The truth is uglier. In the international sphere, order does not spontaneously emerge. It is imposed. It is, moreover, fragile and temporary always, and “rational administration” within the international sphere of the sort envisaged by Wilson and his admirers is no more effective than “rational administration” of the economy. ·
James Gawron ;...As usual Dr. Rahe, you are informative, in-depth, and right on target. I have little to add or subtract and nothing to quibble about. However, you have inadvertently given me a homework assignment. As you know my hobby is Immanuel Kant.
Now for my essay.
Before I engage in the discussion of this issue I must make a general warning about the use of Perpetual Peace. Kant is one of the most systematic philosophers Western Civilization has ever produced. To pluck the most advanced mature concept like Perpetual Peace out of the context of the full Kantian system on which it is dependent and try to employ it properly is ridiculous. It would be akin to someone who had never learned Euclidian Geometry trying to apply Hilbert’s infinite dimensional Geometry properly.
It is important to understand the distinction between Right and Virtue. For Kant, Virtue is a moral end that is personal. Virtue does not justify the use of coercive force against others. Virtue is a Maxim followed for it's own sake. Right is a Law derived from Moral Maxims enforced by a Constitutional Government which holds Freedom as it's highest standard. As long as the United Will of All is expressed through a legitimate Constitutional Government, Right actually requires a society to coerce a coercer.
Again, I must issue a warning here. Kant does not introduce the concept of Right until the Metaphysics of Morals, his last major work. For someone to fully understand the distinctions between Virtue and Right, it would be very useful to have read the Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Pure Practical Reason, the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and the Metaphysics of Morals itself. These are major works requiring a great deal of effort. This is a minimum. As I have said Kant is systematic. If you want a broader view, reading the Critique of Judgement and Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone will give you a sense of how Kant handles Aesthetics and Theology. Now that I have given two stern warnings I can proceed without guilt.
Let's introduce two additional concepts. The Kingdom of Ends and Perpetual Peace. At this point, I can simply guide you by telling you that Virtue is related to the Kingdom of Ends in much the same way as Right is related to Perpetual Peace. The Kingdom of Ends is an ultimate moral end where literally every intelligent being in the Universe has accepted the Categorical Imperative as their moral Maxim. I will allow the good Mr. Kant to speak for himself. Here is a quote, written in 1785 midway through Kant’s career, from Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, [Review of the whole argument.], page 106:
Now, a kingdom of ends would actually come into existence through maxims which the categorical imperative prescribes as a rule for all rational beings, if these maxims were universally followed. Yet even if a rational being were himself to follow such a maxim strictly, he cannot count on everybody else being faithful to it on this ground, nor can he be confident that the kingdom of nature and its purposive order will work in harmony with him, as a fitting member, towards, a kingdom of ends made possible by himself-- or, in other words, that it will favour his expectation of happiness. But in spite of this the law ‘Act on the maxims of a member who makes universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends’ remains in full force, since its command is categorical. And precisely here we encounter the paradox that without any further end or advantage to be attained the mere dignity of humanity, that is, of rational nature in man--and consequently that reverence for a mere Idea--should function as an inflexible precept for the will: and that it is just this freedom from dependence on interested motives which constitutes the sublimity of a maxim and the worthiness of every rational subject to be a law-making member in the kingdom of ends; for otherwise he would have to be regarded as subject only to the law of nature--the law of his own needs.
We can see from the above quote that all is not ‘peaches and cream’ even in the Kingdom of Ends. I will describe it to you in my own words. The Kingdom of Ends is an a priori (before any sense experience) concept existing in all intelligent being’s minds. Once the intelligent being is made conscious of the formal Maxim of the Categorical Imperative and can lock their Will onto it they will act in a maximally moral way. Their sole motive is the Dignity of Humanity, human life as an end in itself and never as a means. The fact that intelligent beings cannot rely upon these Maxims to be universally followed is irrelevant. Further, that the intelligent being can not expect the purposive order (purpose like behavior of Nature) to favour his expectation of happiness is also irrelevant.
Kant should be driving you crazy at this point. You are forced to believe in the Kingdom of Ends and fix your Will upon it because of it’s a priori status. On the other hand you have absolutely no guarantee that it will produce happiness for you. If you are going crazy at this point that is exactly the way Mr. Kant wants you to feel. Mr. Kant is pointing out the absurdity of morality without the context of one of his major meta-ethical postulates.
Gd is Kantian postulate #1. Gd is the Gd of Western Civilization. A transcendental supreme power that has created both all of nature and our moral souls. It is only by faith in the existence of such a creator that we can reconcile the absurdity of both our neighbor intelligent being’s bad behavior & the purposive but impersonal cold hand of blind nature, all to our own need for happiness. You do not need to be religious to understand Kant. But Mr. Kant intends to drive you to the conclusion that only by accepting Gd as a postulate can you make any sense at all of morality or society. I, of course, think Mr. Kant is correct, was correct, and will be correct about this. In a similar way Mr. Euclid is correct about Geometry, was correct, and will be correct. This is a very mature and difficult conclusion to come to. Do not think I am being flippant. I must state clearly what I think or you will get the wrong idea.
Now let us approach Right and Perpetual Peace. As we stated earlier Right is a Law enforced by a legitimate Constitutional Government. Right always requires the Government to coerce the coercer but also requires the Government to coerce no one else. Right was first fully introduced in 1797 in the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant’s final major work. Right is first formulated as Private Right. This is chiefly about property, contracts, and individual relationships. However, even here Right requires a legitimate Constitutional Government to make the deeds Conclusive. Without such Government the deeds are only Provisional. Right progresses through Private Right to Public Right were the function of the Government in relationship to the citizens of the republic are further delineated. Next, The Right of Nations is introduced. Here each Nation is treated as a person. Similar to Corporate Persons in corporate law. The Right of Nations covers the interaction of full Nation states.
Finally, in the very last pages of Kant’s very last major work, Cosmopolitan Right is introduced. This Right’s function is solely toward the possible union of all nations with a view to certain universal laws for their possible commerce. At this point I am going to let Mr. Kant speak for himself again. You must deal with Kant as Kant. Not as I interpret him for you. From The Metaphysics of Morals, Conclusion, page 123:
Now morally practical reason pronounces in us its irresistible veto: there is to be no war, neither war between you and me in the state of nature nor war between us as states, which, although they are internally in a lawful condition, are still externally (in relation to one another) in a lawless condition; for war is not the way in which everyone should seek his rights. So the question is no longer whether perpetual peace is something real or a fiction, and whether we are not deceiving ourselves in our theoretical judgment when we assume that it is real. Instead, we must act as if it is something real, though perhaps it is not; we must work toward establishing perpetual peace and the kind of constitution that seems to us most conducive to it (say, a republicanism of all states, together and separately) in order to bring about perpetual peace and put an end to the heinous waging of war, to which as their chief aim all states without exception have hitherto directed their internal arrangements. And even if the complete realization of this objective always remains a pious wish, still we are certainly not deceiving ourselves in adopting the maxim of working incessantly towards it. For this is our duty, and to admit that the moral law within us is itself deceptive would call forth us the wish, which arouses our abhorrence, rather to be rid of all reason and to regard ourselves as thrown by one’s principles into the same mechanism of nature as all the other species of animals. It can be said that establishing universal and lasting peace constitutes not merely a part of the doctrine right but rather the entire final end of the doctrine of right within the limits of reason alone; for the condition of peace is the only condition in which what is mine and what is yours are secured under laws for a multitude of human beings living in proximity to one another and therefore under a constitution.
From this quote we can see the great analogy of Virtue & The Kingdom of Ends to Right & Perpetual Peace. At this stage of analysis Perpetual Peace seems to be performing the same role for Right as The Kingdom of Ends does for Virtue. This analogic state of affairs is where many people leave off in their studies. This is exactly what Dr. Paul A. Rahe and Dr. Daniel Pipes were reacting to when they mentioned the dangerous misapplication of Kant. From this quote one would think that Nation States are forced by a priori moral requirements to obsessively pursue a world government no matter how negative the results. Also, we would assume that war must be avoided at any cost even National Suicide. This self sacrificial mentality would be psychologically irresistible due to the a priori roots of Perpetual Peace. Thankfully, Mr. Kant does not leave us with only this treatment. Once again it is important to remember the difference between Virtue and Right. Right not only justifies but requires the use of force to coerce a coercer. In this next passage direct from Kant’s mouth, Perpetual Peace will look a great deal different then the Kingdom of Ends. From The Metaphysics of Morals, The Right of Nations, $60, page 118-119:
There are no limits to the rights of a state against an unjust enemy (no limits with respect to quantity or degree, though there are limits with respect to quality); that is to say, an injured state may not use any means whatever but may use those means that are allowable to any degree that it is able to, in order to maintain what belongs to it. - But what is an unjust enemy in terms of the concepts of the right of nations, in which - as is the case in a state of nature generally - each state is judge in its own case? It is an enemy whose publicly expressed will (whether by word or deed) reveals a maxim by which, if it were made a universal rule, any condition of peace among nations would be impossible and, instead, a state of nature would be perpetuated.
Now we see that Right is no patsy. The description of an Unjust Enemy is over 200 years old and yet it immediately reminds us of Hitler. As predicted by the theory of Right an Unjust Enemy makes any condition of peace among nations impossible. Thus there is no limits to prosecution of a war against an Unjust Enemy. If this does not remind one of World War II, I don’t know what would. Now let us return to Kant verbatim. From The Metaphysics of Morals, The Right of Nations, $61, page 119:
Since a state of nature among nations, like a state of nature among individual human beings, is a condition that one ought to leave in order to enter a lawful condition, before this happens any rights of nations, and anything external that is mine or yours which states can acquire or retain by war, are merely provisional. Only in a universal association of states (analogous to that by which a people becomes a state) can rights come to hold conclusively and a true condition of peace come about. But if such a state made up of nations were to extend too far over vast regions, governing it and so too protecting each of its members would finally have to become impossible, while several such corporations would again bring on a state of war. So perpetual peace, the ultimate goal of the whole right of nations, is indeed an unachievable idea. Still, the political principles directed toward perpetual peace, of entering into such alliances of states, which serve for continual approximation to it, are not unachievable. Instead, since continual approximation to it is a task based on duty and therefore on the right of humans beings and of states, this can certainly be achieved.
From this quote we realize just how practical Right is. It is physically impossible for the Cosmopolitan Super State to project enough power to protect all of it’s citizen States. Thus, Actual Perpetual Peace is ultimately impossible. However, using the a priori idea as a guiding thread an Approximation to Perpetual Peace can be achieved. We are now far, far from the point of view of the peace at any cost obsessives that populate universities and the media in such quantity.
I hope this is useful in clearing up the misapplications of Kant. Dr. Rahe’s comment which I originally responded to talked about the absurdity of “rational administration”. He declared that “rational administration” is no more effective in the international sphere then it is in the economy. That Kant openly declares Actual Perpetual Peace to be impossible should put to rest hyper-rational fantasies. After all it is the Critique of Pure Reason. I think I have supported Dr. Rahe's thesis with my essay. Also, Kant is a great intellectual resource. One shouldn’t be frightened off by shallow and manipulative interpretations.
As a final note. You might have noticed that the two major problems with Perpetual Peace actually mirror the two major problems with the Kingdom of Ends but written very, very large. The Unjust Enemy is analogous to the problem of the behavior of everybody else when only you alone are willing to follow the Categorical Imperative. The Physical Inability of the Cosmopolitan Super State to Protect it’s Citizen States is analogous to the problem of a purposive but impersonal Nature not acceding to your need for happiness.
Perhaps Mr. Kant is still trying to drive us crazy to get us to accept the Gd Postulate. He’d even chase us into the global immanental realm of the Right of Nations to pin us down. I don’t mind. Do you?
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
James, I read it with interest and would like to promote it, but I think it would be helpful to readers to have hyperlinks to the references and indented quotations. Want to make this a bit more user-friendly?
Oct '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Thanks James. As before with your previous Kant post, I'll have to read it a few more times to digest. You're asking a lot of my brain on the first day of '12.
Dec '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Well Claire I do have a scanner and could scan & pdf the ragged old heavily highlighted pages of my 20 year old paperback Kant library. Maybe I should just for the effect. However, I guess I could find links on-line somewhere. I'll try, thanks for the advice.
Jim
Dec '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Sorry for the delay. The links are now provided. Also, I think the editing process I was using actually distorted the page numbers. It added a number to each. The books are around 100 pages not a 1000. I have checked everything and it's OK now.
Nov '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
My favorite quick treatment of Kant is in Harry Jaffa's reply to legal positivist Lino Graglia in Storm over the Constitution. Can read the whole excerpt here.
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Thanks for this. It is very helpful.
Dec '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Robert, I read the piece quickly. The problem with the gentleman is that he doesn't grasp the totality of Kant's enterprise. It is Aristotle's very categories that are at the root. Kant intends to rebuild Aristotle's categories because they are inadequate to handle Newton. You must remember that Greek Euclidian Geometry is only 2 dimensional and that Algebra is invented a thousand years later. The Greeks won't even use the concept zero.
Next Kant sees Plato's ethics as the second major problem. Plato, although a highly sophisticated one, is an immanental polytheist. The ethics of Western Civilization are grounded on Transcendental Monotheism. Kant must reconcile this. His radical Categorical Imperative and endorsement of Transcendental Freedom are his starting points. He is leading you to the Gd Postulate. I would suggest that even more difficult yet to sell to a modern is the third Meta-Ethical Postulate, an Immortal Soul. Read about paralogisms in the Critique of Pure Reason. Enjoy!
Nov '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
It would be a great misunderstanding to say of Jaffa that he calls for a simple return to Aristotelianism. One has to dilate on what he says about the utterly changed historical circumstances within modernity in contrast to the ancient polity: "Aristotle and Locke in the American Founding."
There are fantastic problems in trying to resurrect Kant (consider his survival via Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger).
For Kant an appeal to any super-human standard of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, is impermissible. The important thing is that the highest – the most objective – law determining human beings (categorical imperative or what have you) is something humanly created. It is something in the human soul. There’s nothing higher than human beings. (Abe Lincoln is no Kantian, much as some formidable Straussians -- Mark Blitz, Hadley Arkes -- try to make him out to be an unconscious Kantian).
Bottom line: Kant reduces to a matter of will the rational grasp of the eternal idea of the good claimed by both political and philosophic reason.
One has to take account of Rousseau (and the problem of will and willing) as arguably more decisive for Kant's enterprise than that of modern natural science, etc.
Nov '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
By "humanly created," consider that Kant contends that no action by itself is either moral or immoral. What makes it moral is the intention, the moral will that the morally responsible impose upon themselves. They voluntarily repress even the strongest drives, whether natural or political, in the name of their moral responsibility (autonomy). “A good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to obtain some proposed end; it is good only through its willing; i.e., it is good in itself” (Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Hackett, 1981, p. 7).
Kantianism leads to patently absurd conclusions. Taking seriously the autonomy of will is seen most clearly Kant's notorious definition of marriage: “a lifelong union for the purpose of mutual use of genitals." Consider Strauss, On Plato’s Symposium, p. 214. Strauss blames this on Kant’s need for a universally applicable definition inclusive of childless marriages -- on Kant’s refusal to orient himself by the natural or nomos (political) "best" from which all others fall short. Kant’s autonomous will leaves no place for the superordination for the natural or nomos eternal idea of the good.
1/2
Edited on January 2, 2012 at 1:14pmNov '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Kant’s eternal good for all men is morally autonomous will. It is the crux of his revulsion against the delights of making love. For him, it means surrendering one’s humanity, one’s moral autonomy, in the heat of sub-human passion. It's arguably responsible for the current use of “having sex” for making love (Cf. Bloom, “The Ladder of Love,” in Plato’s Symposium, 58-59). However that may be, for Kant it is monstrous, inhuman. In the heat of “having sex,” one treats another human being as a means and not an end in itself, a responsible because morally autonomous individual. Hence Kant’s peculiar comparison of sexual intercourse to cannibalism. As an act that physically "consumes" another, intercourse literally turns human beings to meat.
For Kant, only autonomous, self-legislating individuals truly are good human beings. Their intellectual autonomy does not give in to what, for him, is the bestial temptation of natural or nomos (political) drives.
The main point: Kant’s emphasis on the primacy of autonomous moral will is out to conquer even the most powerful natural or nomos longings.
2/2
Dec '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Ironically, Carl von Clausewitz used Kantian logic to explain the nature of military conflict in his work "On War" which is closely still held as the guidon within the Western military structure.
Apr '11
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
What Robert Lux said. He scores points for linking to Bloom's book.
One issue, though. We've no need to resurrect Kant. Every time you hear someone say something like, "We attacked Iraq, so why not North Korea?" it's an echo of Kant. It's the feeling (because that's what it really is) that we ought to have universal principles for action. Ideas about the best and the prudential means of getting close to it dissatisfy the universalists, precisely because prudence relies on particulars.
Kant walks among us, alas.
Feb '11
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
On Kant and sex, two points:
1. If Kant has a “revulsion against the delights of making love,” it forms no part of his moral philosophy. The crucial point about sex, for Kant, is not the autonomy of the will but the absolute unity of the person. It is impossible to make use of a part of a person without thereby making use of the whole person. (Hence it is also immoral to maim oneself for profit — say, to sell a tooth, because this would be a “partial suicide.”) As such, it is impossible just to allow your sexual organs to be used by another without thereby allowing your entire person to be used by another. So in sex, you give yourself to the other, whole and entire. And that can only be permitted if you thereby receive the other whole and entire, and not merely provisionally and for a brief time, but permanently in the bonds of marriage.
2. Kant never married and seems to have lacked the kind of understanding of women that one can get from actually spending time with them. This comes out in his writings, to a certain extent.
Aug '11
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
I learned a great deal from James Gawron brilliant analysis of Kant which supplemented Phillip Rahe’s comments.
I believe that James’ interpretation of Kant’s “middle state” allows room for a limited notion of emergent spontaneous cooperation. For Kant, Rahe, and Locke it is only a sovereign government that has the right to “coerce the coercer.” Government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a nation. In the international arena, as in an ecosystem, there is in fact no such monopoly of force. Nevertheless, order and cooperation do emerge in ecosystems. Such order is always fragile and always temporary; but it is real. In stable systems such force is balanced by both alliances and counter forces.
In retrospect we see that there was a great deal of international stability during the Cold War however fragile and temporary that stability. It was stable although some of the participants were totally unethical in the Kantian sense.
Jan '11
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
When you're worrying about a moral dilemma, does your anxiety come from a conflict between doing right versus doing wrong?
Moral philosophy is more suited to the other kind of moral conflict; not whether to do right versus wrong, but how? When you're trying to do good, but you don't know the best way to bring it about, that's when a rational plan of attack comes in handy.
And so, Kant's argument is much like Jimmy the Greek's, if I may paraphrase: "The moral is not always to the dutiful ... but that's the way to bet."
Aug '11
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Thanks, this is helpful for thinking through the issue of isolationism, with reference of the original issue of the Paul candidacy.
A lot of smart people on the libertarian side are drawn to isolationism in one form or another. Arguments against this position are generally either pragmatic/utilitarian (and hence question-begging) or tainted, at least from the pure libertarian point of view, by apparent vested interests.
The Kantian perspective seems to effectively refute isolationism since it implies a universal obligation in the formulation of a nations "foreign policy", which holds despite whatever errors its detractors can point out in its past actions.
Dec '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Hello everyone, I am back. I was again, due to circumstance, forced to sleep, eat, work, and pray. Now I can get back to the discussion.
Robert, your questions need answers. Even though Mr. Jaffa is defending Kant, he is not defending a full and complete Kant. I will take your objections one at a time.
1.) Kant is not appealing to a super-human standard of right and wrong anymore then Euclid is appealing to a super-human precision when he talks of points being infinitely small. The idea of the points, we must assume, exists in a transcendental realm. For 2300 years Euclid's basic postulates have remained the same. There is no government enforcement, no secret society, no religious entity enforcing these postulates. All of science and mathematics employ them.
I believe Kant's treatment of morality is as sound as Euclid's treatment of Geometry. Although momentarily, deontological ethics is out of fashion. I don't think the fashion will last. Kant will.
Dec '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Robert Lux: Founding."
There are fantastic problems in trying to resurrect Kant (consider his survival via Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger).
· Jan 2 at 3:04am
2.) I am not resurrecting Kant. He has never died and needs no resurrection. For the last 200 years since Kant there have been 3 main branches of Philosophy. Atheistic Dogmatic Materialism, Agnostic Skeptical Formalism, and for want of a better word simply Kant. It is my opinion that Kantian deontological ethics isn't just a branch of ethics. It is ethics! Just as we really can't understand any non-euclidean geometry without first grasping Euclid, we are unable to clearly define Heteronomous ethics without first understanding Deontological Ethics. Whether this view is popular, I really don't care. Does one need to vote on the proposition 2 + 2 = 4. It will be Mr. Kant that best defends your Right to do so. Surely you wouldn't be waiting up for the returns to come in before you added up your grocery bill.
Perhaps you prefer authority. Someone with no credentials added 2 + 2 and got 4. Someone with supreme credentials added 2 + 2 and got 5. Surely you'd know who to trust.
Dec '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
Robert Lux: There are fantastic problems in trying to resurrect Kant (consider his survival via Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger).
· Jan 2 at 3:04am
3.) Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger are not followers of Kant. Two philosophers that I consider to be in the main Kantian thrust are Kierkegaard and Buber.
Hegel is the principal culprit and Heideggar is Hegel's disciple. I will get to Nietzsche later.
The root of Hegel's problem (he is writing 20 years after Kant) is that he understands the words but doesn't get their deep meaning. In the Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) are the Antinomies. Set out in two columns as Thesis and Anti-thesis. They are in the general section called Dialectical Reasoning (as are the Paralogisms I mentioned to you before). Hegel seeing these words and not understanding the meaning created the central theme of his philosophy. For Hegel, Dialectical Reasoning is the Supreme form of reasoning. This magical new form could be relied upon to solve almost any problem if only the discussion (or violent conflict in Karl Marx's application of Hegel) went on long enough.(cont.)
Edited on January 3, 2012 at 4:54amDec '10
Re: Understanding Perpetual Peace
(cont. from #19)
This would be just fine, however, Immanuel Kant clearly tells you that Dialectical Reasoning is false reasoning. He is presenting the Dialectical so that you do not fall for these false sophistic modes of thought. Hegel is a bad joke. Kirkegaard knew it and said so. Of course, those with power and no brains usually are very sensitive. Kirkegaard paid the price. Funny thing, if you damage a man with your money and power whose only crime is proclaiming 2 + 2 = 4, does it make 2 + 2 = 5.
Edited on January 3, 2012 at 4:56am