Critique of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace”

War impairs the quality of our species by instilling countries with the fearful distress that accompanies the condition of war, by requiring countries to fight and sacrifice the lives of citizens, and by obligating the society to spend excessive amounts of money and resources to fight and recover from the devastating results of war. However, throughout human history wars have consistently developed because of disputes regarding land, resources, power and religious disagreements. Because war has had such a dramatically consequential impact on our species, many philosophers have contemplated and expressed ideas to help people understand the nature of war and to most effectively reduce or eliminate the number of wars that nations experience. In “Perpetual Peace,” the influential philosopher Immanuel Kant proposes strategies by which mankind can entirely eliminate the developments of war and instead maintain a condition of absolute democratic peace among the species. Although Kant asserts methods that would increase the ability of humanity to establish the condition of peace, the extremist nature of the requirements provides some flaws in Kant’s argument regarding the League of Nations, the peaceful virtues of a republic, and the prohibition of standing armies.

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Konigsberg, which is a city that now resides in Russian territory but at the time was a part of Prussia and that spoke German as its primary language. Kant’s parents were Pietistic evangelical Lutherans, and as a result, the young Kant was sent to the Collegium Fridericianum to study the Bible, Christian theology, prayer, religious emotions, and divine grace. However, Kant instead preferred to study the Latin classics and rebelled against the theological atmosphere of the school by concentrating on the importance of reason and free thought rather than emotions and religiosity. Kant later enhanced his education by completing college at the University of Konigsberg, at which point Kant became passionately devoted to philosophical studies (Rohlf). In 1754, Kant commenced an extensive and successful teaching career at the University of Konigsberg, where over the succeeding decades he taught philosophy while also writing several essays and books about a diverse range of significant philosophical subjects, including science, natural philosophy, reason, metaphysics and humanity. One of the most important works that Kant developed later in his life was the 1795 essay, “Perpetual Peace.”

“Perpetual Peace” addresses the concept of war and establishes provisional strategies by which our species can officially eliminate war. Kant asserts that no treaty of peace can be implemented if the conditions of the treaty provide the possibility of future war. Many treaties that end wars demonstrate this problem by including conditions into the treaty, for the establishment of specific conditions and requirements that must be achieved for the treaty to be preserved indicates that the war would resume if a conflict emerges or if the conditions are not met. Thus, we must prohibit any treaties that imply the possibility of future war, for such treaties do not establish official peace between the two sides but instead provide a temporary suspension of the condition of war. Another provision that Kant expressed as a means of achieving perpetual peace is that independent states must be forbidden from possessing other states through military force or financial purchases. This anti-imperialism provision is important because many violent conflicts are generated by one culture asserting its governmental and military powers over another sovereign culture (Kant). Because it is a natural instinct for a nation to resist being occupied or acquired by a different nation, restricting countries from exercising imperialism by asserting dominion over other cultures would reduce the number of violent wars that occur.

Kant also elaborates on the need to prohibit cruel acts of dishonorable hostility during warfare. Committing dishonorable and deceitful deeds during warfare diminishes the credibility of the nation and prevents the other side from being able to trust the dishonorable nation. Thus, the lack of trust and confidence that accompanies dishonest and illegitimate war strategies makes the other side reluctant to trust the offending nation and minimizes the ability for a treaty to be established between the two sides (Kant). Additionally, Kant argues that no state should be allowed to interfere with the affairs or intervene with the government of another state, for doing so increases the chances of hostility developing between the two sides and impedes on the right of the nation to determine the values, laws, and conditions of their particular society.

Although Kant makes some brilliant observations and compelling arguments to reduce violence in “Perpetual Peace,” some elements of his proposals are impaired by flaws that would prevent the provisions from being actualized and from establishing everlasting peace. For instance, Kant expresses that a League of Nations that presides over all states and solidifies peaceful international relationships among all different states would eliminate war. Just as citizens of a state must sacrifice certain freedoms and liberties to establish laws and ensure that the citizens refrain from committing harmful and destructive crimes against each other, so too state governments must sacrifice a moderate level of autonomy and follow universal laws that protect state governments from inflicting harm on other societies (Kant). Kant contends that all states in the League would maintain sovereignty regarding the right to establish their own laws that are most appropriate according to the values and customs of their cultures. However, the League would exclusively provide security and maintain peace among all of the states without exercising dominion over the autonomy of the states. Additionally, the League of Nations would possess a tribunal committee to solve disputes between different states in the League. This is an important provision, for just as citizens often refrain from acting on violent and criminal impulses against each other because there are legal recourses to settle contentious disputes between citizens, so too a tribunal that is designed to settle disputes between nations would reduce the need to settle international disputes with violent wars.

However, a significant flaw of Kant’s League of Nations proposal is that the league would be voluntary and would not possess any coercive powers. The status of the League as voluntary instead of mandatory would prevent the League of Nations from being able to incorporate all states into the league and would, in turn, diminish the efficaciousness of the league’s peace preservation efforts. Kant argues that all people and all nations eventually recognize that the state of peace is more beneficial to the quality of a culture than the state of war. Therefore, as more and more states join the League, and as the other states witness the advantages of peace being enjoyed by all of the states in the League, more states would increasingly join the League until it officially represents all nations of the world. However, this assumption is inaccurate because there is a very real possibility that certain states would not desire to join the League due to concerns regarding imperialistic control, loss of sovereignty, or a reluctance to end wars in which the states are currently engaged. While the League of Nations might be able to establish peace among the states that join the united federation, the league would experience challenges trying to enforce peace or influence international relations in states that do not voluntarily join the league (Kleingeld). Thus, the status of the League of Nations as a voluntary organization deprived of any coercive powers would make the federation futile, cause many states to resist joining the league, and prevent the League from asserting legitimate authority over the international endeavors of many states.

Another problem with Kant’s proposal is his argument that all states must be prohibited from forming or maintaining a standing army. Kant expresses the argument that the very presence of a standing army prevents the concept of perpetual peace from being actualized, for the existence of a standing army for one state requires that other states must also develop armies to prepare for any possible attacks and to most effectively defend the citizens from foreign invaders (Kant). Although history has shown that a country that accumulates resources to build a powerful army instills other countries with fear and motivates them to also accumulate military resources, the abolishment of all standing armies is too extreme and simplistic of a position to be realized in this very complicated and dangerous world. Because violence is such a prominent aspect of nature and of our species, cultures must be capable of defending the citizens against outside attacks to preserve the security and survival of the culture. Thus, the goal of insisting that every state refrain from developing an army is too extreme and would be very difficult to achieve. Preventing states that do not join the league from developing armies would be especially difficult because those states might be currently participating in wars and would risk annihilation if they eliminated the army. Additionally, preventing states inside or outside of the League from building armies would also be a difficult task without the use of violent military interventions, and any military force from the League would cause a hostile condition of war to develop and persist between states and the League. Thus, eliminating all standing armies without using coercive powers would be impossible for the League to accomplish, and compelling states to eliminate armies with force would prevent the optimal perpetuation of absolute peace.

Instead of arguing for there to be no standing armies, a more reasonable and moderate balance can be achieved in the form of preventing armies from invading other countries. For instance, in Thomas More’s Utopia, the ideal utopian society that More describes does not refrain from having an army. Rather, More presents the army of Utopia as being honorable fighters who never instigate wars with other cultures but who possess the superior powers and advanced resources required to overcome any foreign attacks. Therefore, Kant’s notion of eliminating and prohibiting standing armies is too extreme and unrealistic. In contrast, a universal law that permits states to build a standing army for defensive purposes but that also restricts those armies from invading other countries would be a more pragmatic goal and would more effectively facilitate a condition of peace.

Kant also argues that every state must form a republic to ascertain perpetual peace. Republics include countries in which the people generally possess the power to influence the government, the laws of the culture, and the decisions or actions that are taken by the country. In an autocracy in which the ruler has exclusive and absolute power, the ruler can engage the country into wars for trivial and unnecessary reasons without having to fight in the war or suffer the consequences of the violence. On the other hand, in republics in which people must consent to the war, the fact that the people would suffer the destructive, violent and expensive costs of the war encourages the people to inevitably reject proposals for war (Kant). However, there is a flaw in this claim, for the argument assumes that groups of humans demonstrate exceptional reasoning skills together and would, in turn, utilize rationality to prevent the country from going to war. History contradicts this notion, for many cultures have experienced situations in which the general public and majority of citizens supported unjustified wars because of fear, emotional reactions, hatred, greed, or religious differences. For instance, even the American public supported the Iraq War of 2003. Although the American culture would later learn that the premises for the preemptive strike in the invasion against Iraq –such as WMDs and connections to 9/11—proved to be false, the American public was initially highly supportive of the war because the judgment of the citizens was obscured by intense emotions, dramatic fear, and false information provided by experts. Thus, while there are many advantages in establishing a republic so the citizens can influence the government and determine the laws of the land according to their needs and desires, history demonstrates that even the majority opinion of a republic is prone to exercise poor judgment by supporting unnecessary and destructive wars.

Although the proposals of Kant might not be a realistic method of entirely eliminating war, his strategies would help reduce and minimize the number of wars our species experiences. Perpetual peace is perhaps unfeasible, for the condition of occasional violence is an aspect of nature. Everything in the universe features symmetrical qualities in which opposites harmonize to create a whole, and just as there are creative forces and destructive forces in the universe, and just as there are sunny days and stormy days on the earth, the symmetrical quality of nature might necessitate that our species experiences moments of peace and moments of war. Rather than making us complacent and tolerant of war, this notion of war being an aspect of nature should instead help us realize that peace will not simply be provided by nature and that we instead must take diligent action to establish peace for ourselves. Thus, while some violent wars among are species might be inevitable, we should strive to minimize the amount of violence that occurs. While there are flaws in “Perpetual Peace” that would prevent Kant’s proposals from being actualized and from achieving complete peace, his provisions would successfully reduce the circumstances that can lead to war, minimize the amount of violence among different countries, and maximize the ability of our species to generate and sustain conditions of peace.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. "Perpetual Peace.” Mount Holyoke College. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2014. <https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm>.

Kleingeld, Pauline. "Approaching Perpetual Peace: Kant’s Defence of a League of States and his Ideal of a World Federation." University of Groningen. N.p., 1 July 2004. Web. 23 Feb. 2014. <http://www.rug.nl/staff/pauline.kleingeld/kleingeld-approaching-perpetual-peace.pdf>.

Rohlf, Michael. "Immanuel Kant." Stanford University. N.p., 20 May 2010. Web. 23 Feb. 2014. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#LifWor>.