PR1520 Is world peace possible? Word count: 1859
World peace, an idea that has been pursued for centuries, global non-violence, in which every single nation cooperates with each other preventing warfare.World peace is an issue that has been constantly questioned throughout history. Is world peace possible? Theoretically it is possible, however in practice no. In order to answer this question two classical German authors of the history of philosophy will be addressed; Kant and Hegel. Both the Kantian and Hegelian schools are very relevant today. The former focuses on the possibility of peace which is based upon a league of nations. This idea has inspired the creation of the United Nations. The Kantian school believes that this body would mediate conflicts amongst other states, eventually achieving international peace, a “foedus pacificum” (Kant, Towards Perpetual Peace, PP 1795). The latter has proven to be very contemporary as to recent events in international politics. The Kantian point of view results naïve for Hegel, since there is no international judge other that nations themselves. For Hegel, the relationship between different nations is very contingent and vulnerable as the powerful nations ultimately rule international politics. As mentioned previously, peace is possible in theory, however the human nature does not allow it. For centuries, there has always been a war in the world. It is extremely hard to determine the last time man lived without war, practically proving that despite the all the effort mankind has put into it, peace is unattainable. The two views will be compared to address the possibility of peace and inevitability of war. Both Kant and Hegel have their strong and weak points which will be analysed, compared and contrasted. From Kant’s perspective, to achieve global peace a league of nations must be formed by having all nations joining together and cooperating voluntarily. “Nations, as states, can be
appraised as individuals, who in their natural condition (that is, in their independence from external laws) already wrong one another by being near one another; and each of them, for the sake of its security, can and ought to require the others to enter with it into a constitution similar to a civil constitution, in which each can be assured of its right (PP, 8: 354).” According to Kant, nations should become part of a constitution alike a civil constitution. Kant compares the individual with the state in the way that states ought to act like individuals by leaving their state of nature and establishing a civil constitution in order to guarantee themselves safety from war. Nonetheless, it ought not to be above the actual state in terms of power. Despite this constitution not being superior in power compared to the state itself, Kant stresses the importance of states entering it.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 7 pages?
- Fall '19
- World War II