This is a chapter in Guides to Peace and Justice from Ancient Sages to the Suffragettes,
which is published as a book.
For ordering information, please click here.
Click below to watch and listen to Sanderson Beck's audio recording of Peace Plans of Saint-Pierre and Rousseau.
Conscience is the voice of the soul.
Jean-Jacques RousseauFirmly convinced as I am that nothing on this earth
is worth purchase at the price of human blood,
and that there is no more liberty anywhere
than in the heart of the just man,
I feel, however, that it is natural for people of courage,
who were born free,
to prefer an honorable death to dull servitude.
Jean-Jacques RousseauAll trade is in its essence advantageous-
even to that party to whom it is least so.
All war is in its essence ruinous;
and yet the great employments of government
are to treasure up occasions of war,
and to put fetters upon trade.
Jeremy Bentham When the worst comes to the worst,
peace may always be had by some unessential sacrifice.
Jeremy BenthamIf only freedom is granted,
enlightenment is almost sure to .follow.
Immanuel KantDare to know!
Have courage to use your own reason!
Immanuel KantReason, from its throne of supreme legislating authority,
absolutely condemns war as a legal recourse
and makes a state of peace a direct duty,
even though peace cannot be established or secured
except by a compact among nations.
Immanuel Kant
Abbé Charles-Irénée Castel de Saint-Pierre
(1658-1743) was educated
at a Jesuit college, where he studied
the classics,
logic, ethics, physics, mathematics, and metaphysics.
He joined a strict order of monks, but he had to leave it for
reasons of health.
He moved to Paris in 1680 and was at court
from 1693 to 1718,
when he was expelled from the French Academy
for
refusing to approve of the title "Great" for Louis
XIV.
He studied both the theory and practice of politics and was
particularly influenced
by Plato, Bodin, Machiavelli, Grotius,
Pufendorf, Richelieu, Doria, and Hobbes.
Paix Perpetuelle was
first published in 1712, but he expanded that sketch
to a two-volume
edition the next year, which was translated into English in 1714
as A Project for Settling an Everlasting Peace in Europe.
He added a third volume in 1717 and published abridgements in
1729 and 1738.
Saint-Pierre tried to gain publicity for his effort
by giving credit to France's king Henri IV
for the "grand
design" that was actually written by Sully years later in
1638.
He attended the peace conference at Utrecht in 1713 as the
secretary
for the Abbé Polignac, one of the three French
plenipotentiaries.
This gave him first-hand experience of the
peacemaking process and
stimulated him to work on his plan that
could make peace perpetual.
Saint-Pierre attempted to use the philosophical methodology
of Descartes
in order to gain certainty by means of intuition
and deduction.
His first idea had been to include all the nations
of the world;
but then he limited his confederation to Europe
so that
the whole project would not seem impossible.
Examining
the various means which could prevent war among European nations,
he inferred that a federation of states is the best solution.
Whereas Hobbes showed that for the protection and benefit of individuals
there must be unity in the state, Saint-Pierre went a step further
in reasoning
that to safeguard the peace between nations there
must be a unifying federation.
Although accused by Rousseau of
unrealistically expecting people to be rational,
Saint-Pierre
did recognize that passions control the actions of most people.
Therefore to overcome motives of self-interest the fear of violence
must be used to enforce law and justice.
Foreshadowing Rousseau's
ideas, he posited that society protects people
from violence by
a contract and can express its sovereign will by
establishing a permanent federation among the states of Europe.
Saint-Pierre's plan took the form of an elaborate treaty divided
into articles
that were fundamental, important, and useful.
States
of various forms of government could be in the federation,
though
most at this time were monarchies.
The laws founded on justice
were to be equal and reciprocal for all.
Saint-Pierre pointed
to the confederations of German and Helvetian states
and the United
Provinces of the Netherlands
to show the practical advantages
of union.
He began his plan with peace and contrasted this to
the French war aims
that would have initiated the biased plan
of Sully.
Saint-Pierre proposed twelve fundamental articles.
First, all
the Christian sovereigns of Europe shall form a permanent union
for peace and security, endeavoring also to make treaties with
Muslim sovereigns,
and the sovereigns are to be represented
by
deputies in a perpetual senate in a free city.
Second, the European
society shall not interfere with the governments
except to preserve
them from seditious rebellions,
and he even went so far as to
guarantee hereditary sovereignties.
Third, the Union shall send
commissioners to investigate conspiracies
and revolts and may
send troops to punish the guilty according to the laws.
Fourth,
territories shall remain as they are unless three-fourths of the
Union
votes for a change, and no treaties may be made
without
the "advice and consent" of the Union.
Fifth, no sovereign
shall possess more than one state.
Sixth, Spain and France shall
remain in the house of Bourbon.
These previous five articles have
been criticized
for not allowing a natural process of change.
Seventh, chambers of commerce shall be maintained, and each sovereign
must suppress robbers and pirates or pay reparation;
if necessary
the Union may assist them in this.
Eighth, no sovereign shall take up arms except
against a declared
enemy of the European society.
Complaints shall be discussed and
mediated by the senate in the city of peace.
The Union shall defend
the sovereigns who agree with its decisions.
After at least fourteen
nations have joined the confederation,
any sovereign refusing
to join is to be declared an enemy by the rest of Europe,
which
is to make war on it until the state joins or is dispossessed.
The ninth article specified that the senate was to represent
with
one delegate each of the following 24 powers:
France, Spain, England,
Holland, Savoy, Portugal, Bavaria, Venice, Genoa, Florence,
Switzerland,
Lorraine, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, the papal states, Muscovy,
Austria,
Courland, Prussia, Saxony, Palatine, Hanover, and ecclesiastical
electors.
Obviously this scheme allowed extra votes for the divided
German and Italian states.
Tenth, each state shall contribute
to the expenses
of the society in proportion to its revenues.
Eleventh, the senate shall take up questions after a plurality
vote,
and three-fourths is needed for a decision.
Twelfth, none
of the fundamental articles may be altered
except by a unanimous
vote of all members.
In the important articles Saint-Pierre gave more details
he
recommended such as Utrecht as the seat of the senate,
which shall
have an ambassador in every province of two million people.
No
sovereign shall keep more than 6,000 soldiers in his nation.
Enemies
of the union shall be punished with death or life imprisonment,
and anyone reporting a conspiracy shall be given a reward.
Every
year on the same day sovereigns shall renew their oath to the
Union.
If a state has no succeeding sovereign, the Union may regulate
the succession or allow a republic to be formed.
The useful articles are even more specific.
The commander-in-chief
of the federal forces
shall not belong to any sovereign family.
Rotating senators shall preside week by week.
The four standing
committees on politics, diplomacy, finances, and war
are to be
supplemented by committees of reconciliation, which shall
adjust difficulties or report them to the senators for their decision.
Freedom of religion is allowed.
The Union may agree on weights,
measures, and coins.
The senate may mediate between conflicts
of non-members
and support the sovereign who accepts its offer.
The European Union shall encourage Asia to establish a permanent
society also.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a fascinating individual, whose unorthodox
ideas
and passionate prose caused a flurry of interest in 18th-century
France;
his republican sentiments for liberty, equality, and brotherhood
led eventually to the French Revolution.
He was born on June 28,
1712, but his mother died in giving birth to him.
His father had
him reading romances and classical histories such as Plutarch
before apprenticing him to an engraver.
Rousseau loved to walk
in nature; frustrated at being locked outside the city gates
of
Geneva at nightfall, at the age of sixteen he left his home to
wander on his own.
He was guided by a Catholic priest to Madame
de Warens,
who took him in for about ten years and eventually
became his mistress.
Rousseau studied music and devised a new
system of musical notation,
which was rejected by the Academy
of Sciences.
Throughout his life Rousseau often earned his living
by copying music.
In Paris in the 1740s he entered literary society
and wrote both the words
and music for an opera Les Muses Galantes.
Rousseau lived for thirty years with an uneducated servant
girl,
who bore him five children, according to his Confessions,
but all of them were given to an orphanage in infancy.
In 1749 Rousseau burst into prominence by winning an essay
contest on the theme:
"Has the progress of the arts and sciences
contributed more
to the corruption or purification of morals?"
Rousseau criticized social institutions for having corrupted
the
essential goodness of nature and the human heart.
In his "Discourse
on the Origin of Inequality" he elaborated on the process
of how social institutions must have developed into the extreme
inequities
of aristocratic France, where the nobility and the
clergy lived in luxury
while the poor peasants had to pay most
of the taxes.
In his "Discourse on Political Economy"
he suggested remedies for these injustices.
In 1756 he retreated
to a simple country life and wrote a romantic novel
La Nouvelle
Héloise, which won the hearts of many.
Some historians
consider Rousseau the initiator
of the romantic rebellion in art
and literature.
Rousseau's two greatest works were published in 1762 -
The
Social Contract and Emile or On Education.
For
Rousseau society itself is an implicit agreement to live together
for the good of everyone with individual equality and freedom.
However, people have enslaved themselves
by giving over their
power to governments,
which are not truly sovereign when they
do not promote the general will.
Rousseau believed that only the
will of all
the people together granted sovereignty.
Various forms
of government are instituted
to legislate and enforce the laws.
He wrote that the first duty of the legislator
is to make the
laws conform to the general will,
and the first rule of public
economy is to
administer justice in conformity with the laws.
His natural political philosophy echoes the way of Lao-zi.
He
suggested that the greatest talent of a ruler is to
disguise his
power to render it less odious by conducting the state
so peaceably
that it seems to need no conductors.
Rousseau valued his citizenship
in Geneva, where he was born,
and he was one of the first strong
voices for democratic principles.
He believed there could be no
liberty
without virtue and no virtue without citizens.
Rousseau explained that citizens depend upon education.
In Emile, a revolutionary book in educational theory,
Rousseau
described how a boy can learn most naturally by direct experience.
Rousseau recommended awakening the inner goodness that comes from
the heart
and warned against the evil contrivances of "civilized"
society.
Where are there laws, and where are they respected?
Everywhere you have seen only individual interest
and men’s passions reigning under this name.
But the eternal laws of nature and order do exist.
For the wise man, they take the place of positive law.
They are written in the depth of his heart
by conscience and reason.
It is to these that he ought to enslave himself
in order to be free.
The only slave is the man who does evil,
for he always does it in spite of himself.
Freedom is found in no form of government;
it is in the heart of the free man.
He takes it with him everywhere.
The vile man takes his servitude everywhere.1
Yet Rousseau was not against positive law.
On the contrary,
laws protect those who are free
from the vile man who violates
them.
We are free within the law, but again the laws must
be in
harmony with reason and the general good.
Rousseau's political writings stirred up controversy, and threatened
by the established powers, he fled into exile to Prussia
and also
visited David Hume in England.
Later he was able to return to
France.
In 1768 a populist revolt protested for more rights against
an oligarchy of twenty-five councilors in Geneva.
Rousseau counseled
against violence but encouraged them in their struggle
and predicted
that in ten or twenty years the times would be
far more favorable
to the cause of a representative party.
In fact the American Revolution
was about ten years away
and the French Revolution about twenty.
Rousseau discussed many different forms of government and
indicated
that
there are various factors to consider in deciding
on the
best form of government for any given state.
Generally he favored
"elective aristocracy" - not hereditary but republican.
In his Constitutional Project for Corsica he advised them
to adopt
democratic government and to abolish hereditary nobility.
Consulted on Poland's government, he recommended the
gradual enfranchisement of the serfs and a multi-level civil service system
whereby one
could advance by merit.
In pain often from a prostate disorder, Rousseau's moodiness
and paranoia
of other influential people increased in his later
years.
Fearing distortions of his life by others, which actually
were written later,
Rousseau tried to tell all honestly in his
Confessions and other autobiographical works.
He died on
July 2, 1778.
Rousseau's writing about a federation to establish lasting
peace was actually
a summary and critique of the plan devised
by the Abbé de Saint-Pierre.
In 1754 an admirer
of the late Abbé, Madame Dupin, suggested to Rousseau
that
he bring to life the good ideas in Saint-Pierre's writings.
In
his Confessions Rousseau gave his reasons for taking up
the project.
Not being confined to the function of a translator,
I was at liberty sometimes to think for myself;
and I had it in my power to give such a form to my work,
that many important truths would pass in it
under the name of the Abbé de Saint-Pierre,
much more safely than under mine.2
He also explained why he felt Saint Pierre's ideas were not effective.
In the offices of all the ministers of state
the Abbé de St. Pierre had ever been considered
as a kind of preacher rather than a real politician,
and he was suffered to say what he pleased,
because it appeared that nobody listened to him.3
It is noteworthy that out of the twenty-three volumes of Saint-Pierre's
works
Rousseau selected "Perpetual Peace" for his first
essay,
which was published at Geneva in 1761.
Rousseau began his description of Saint-Pierre's project
by
expressing the feelings in his heart.
Never did the mind of man conceive a scheme nobler,
more beautiful, or more useful than that
of a lasting peace between all the peoples of Europe.
Never did a writer better deserve a respectful hearing than he
who suggests means for putting that scheme in practice.
What man, if he has a spark of goodness,
but must feel his heart glow within him at so fair a prospect?
Who would not prefer the illusions of a generous spirit,
which overleaps all obstacles, to that dry, repulsive reason
whose indifference to the welfare of mankind
is ever the chief obstacle to all schemes for its attainment?…
I see in my mind’s eye all men joined in the bonds of love.
I call before my thoughts a gentle and peaceful brotherhood,
all living in unbroken harmony,
all guided by the same principles,
all finding their happiness in the happiness of all.4
Yet Rousseau was aware of the need for hard reasoning, and
he promised
to prove his assertions and asked the reader not to
deny what one cannot refute.
Although governments have been instituted to control private
wars,
Rousseau lamented the national wars, which are a thousand
times worse.
In "The Origin of Inequality" he had described
how individuals joined together
to avoid conflicts, but the larger
bodies reverted to even more disastrous conflicts.
Hence arose the national wars, battles, murders, and reprisals
which make nature tremble and shock reason;
and all those horrible prejudices which rank
the honor of shedding human blood among the virtues.
The most decent men learned to consider it
one of their duties to murder their fellow men;
at length men were seen to massacre each other
by the thousands without knowing why;
more murders were committed on a single day of fighting
and more horrors in the capture of a single city
than were committed in the state of nature
during whole centuries over the entire face of the earth.5
To remedy these dangers Rousseau argued that a federal form
of government
must be devised to unite nations, as nations unite
individuals, under the authority of law.
In his time this type
of government was fairly new; but he noted that it did exist
in
the Germanic Body, the Helvetic League, and the States General
of the Netherlands,
and the ancients had the Greek Amphictyons,
the Etruscan Lucumonies,
Latin feriae, and the city leagues
of the Gauls.
Rousseau pointed out that Europe has much in common -
the history
of the Roman Empire, the Christian religion, geography,
blood-ties,
commerce, arts, colonies, and printing.
Yet the violence in practice
contradicts
the moral ideals and rhetoric of governments.
Treaties
are temporary and very unstable;
there are few or no common agreements
on public law;
and in conflicts between nations might makes right
as weakness is taken for wrong.
Nevertheless the boundaries of
countries remain fairly stable
because of the natural conditions
of geography and culture.
No one country is powerful enough ever
to conquer all the others;
but if nations ally together for conquest,
they end up fighting among themselves.
The Germanic states and
the Treaty of Westphalia
stabilized the international situation.
The conflicts, which do continually agitate,
never seem to result
in any advantage to the sovereigns.
Commerce and economics tend
to keep the power of states fairly balanced.
Since it is so difficult
for one nation to conquer others,
it is easy to see that
the federation
would be able to force any ambitious ruler
to abide by the terms
of the league.
Rousseau delineated the following four necessary conditions
for the success of the federation: every important power must
be a member;
the laws they legislate must be binding; a coercive
force must be capable of
compelling every state to obey the common
resolves;
and no member may be allowed to withdraw.
His plan proposed
five articles.
The first establishes a permanent alliance with
a congress so that all conflicts
may be settled and terminated
by arbitration or judicial pronouncement.
The second article determines
which nations shall have a vote,
how the presidency shall pass
from one to another,
and how the contribution quotas shall be
raised to provide for common expenses.
The third declares that
existing boundaries shall be permanent.
The fourth specifies how
violators shall be banned and forced
to comply by means of the
arms of all the confederates.
The fifth article recommends a majority
vote at the start,
but three-quarters after five years, and unanimity
to change the articles.
Rousseau explained how the six motives which lead to war are all removed by this plan.
These motives are:
either to make conquests,
or to protect themselves from aggression,
or to weaken a too powerful neighbor,
or to maintain their rights against attack,
or to settle a difference which has defied friendly negotiation,
or, lastly, to fulfill some treaty obligation.6
Actually the federation makes every purpose easier to accomplish
except the first,
that of conquest, which it most effectively
deters
by gathering all powers against the aggressor.
Also under
the alliance a country need not fear a powerful neighbor,
because
the alliance together has far greater power.
Sovereigns should not complain of losing their prerogatives
because the federation merely is forcing them to be just.
Rousseau
estimated that nations would save approximately half of their
military budgets.
He enumerated the many evils and dangers of
the prevailing conditions in Europe
such as injustice because
of might, insecurity of nations, military expenses, attacks,
no
guarantee for international agreements, no safe or inexpensive
means
of obtaining
justice when wronged, risk and inconvenience
of wars, loss of trade during crises,
and general impoverishment
and lack of security.
The benefits of arbitration are: certainty
of settling disputes peacefully,
abolition of the causes of disputes,
personal security for rulers,
fulfillment of agreements between
rulers, freedom of trade, smaller military expenses,
increase
in population, agriculture, and public wealth and happiness.
Rousseau wrote a brief critique of Saint-Pierre's project,
but it was not published until 1782, four years after he died.
First he wondered why Saint-Pierre's plan had not been adopted,
and he suggested that it was because the princes were short-sighted
in their ambition and greed for power.
They were too proud to
submit themselves to arbitration;
their wisdom was not equal to
their confidence in good fortune in the risks of war.
They were
too blinded by their self interest to see the wisdom of the general
good.
Rousseau recounted how Henri IV had tried to use
self-interest
with the powers of Europe to mold together a commonwealth,
but he died.
Rousseau finally concluded that the only way a federation
could be established
would be by means of a revolution; but sensing
the violence in that,
he considered it as much to be feared
as to be desired.
Jeremy Bentham was born February 15, 1748 in London and died
there in 1832.
He was the son of an attorney, and by the age of
four
he was reading and beginning to study Latin.
He gained a
degree at Oxford in 1763, and becoming a lawyer,
he criticized
Blackstone, an influential legal thinker.
To his father's chagrin
Jeremy never practiced law or traditional politics.
Instead he
developed his own legal philosophy, encouraged social reform,
and he wrote thousands of pages codifying laws.
His most famous work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
was circulated among his friends and finally published in
1789.
A practical thinker, he founded the utilitarian philosophy
which seeks "the greatest happiness of the greatest number."
He explained his fundamental concept as follows:
By utility is meant that property in any object
whereby it tends to produce benefit,
advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness,
or to prevent the happening of mischief,
pain, evil, or unhappiness
to the party whose interest is considered:
if that party be the community in general,
then the happiness of the community:
if a particular individual,
then the happiness of the individual.7
By means of this "hedonic calculus" Bentham attempted
to measure
the positive and negative consequences of any decision.
He went beyond a simple hedonism by describing seven dimensions
of the
pleasure or pain to bring a qualitative evaluation into
the quantification.
Thus one must consider the intensity, duration,
certainty, and nearness of the pleasure or pain.
In addition the
results of the pleasure or pain can
be estimated in terms
of fecundity
and purity;
fecundity means whether there will be further pleasures
or pains later,
and purity whether pleasures or pains are likely
to be followed by their opposites.
Finally one must consider the
extent in terms of how many people may be affected.
Bentham used
these principles in deciding on
the appropriate punishments for
various crimes.
In prison reform he sought to reform morals, preserve
health,
invigorate industry, and spread instruction.
In 1792 he
was made a French citizen, and he advised that new government
as well as that of the United States of America.
He influenced
many who were called "Benthamites,"
particularly James
Mill and his son John Stuart Mill, who wrote on Utilitarianism.
Bentham wrote his essay "A Plan for a Universal and Perpetual
Peace" in 1789,
and it was published a year after his death in The Principles
of International Law.
Bentham declared
that the whole world is his domain
and that the press is his only
tool.
Everyone suffers from war, and the wise consider it the
chief cause of suffering.
Bentham's plan has two main propositions -
to
reduce military forces in Europe and to emancipate colonies.
He
emphasized the importance of a peace proposal,
even if the world
is not ready for it,
because in that case there is a great need
for ideas on peace.
He asked for the prayers of Christians, and
for the welfare of all civilized nations
he had three goals - "simplicity
of government, national frugality, and peace."
Bentham proposed that it is not in the interest of Great Britain
or France
to have colonies, alliances, nor a large navy.
Perpetual
treaties ought to limit troops and establish
a common court of
judicature to decide differences.
However, Bentham was clearly
pacifistic in stipulating that
the court not be armed with coercive
powers.
As he stated later on, he relied upon the power of public
opinion.
For this reason he was especially perturbed by the secrecy
of British foreign affairs,
such that he had to read the Leyden
Gazette to get any news about British diplomacy,
as there
was none in the home press.
Therefore he argued strongly against
secrecy in international relations.
He also complained that newspapers
always took the side of their own nation.
"It is that we
are always in the right, without a possibility of being otherwise.
Against us other nations have no rights."8
The colonies cause nothing but trouble for England and France
and should be given up.
This is in the interest of the mother
country because of the danger of war,
military expense, corruption
by patronage, and complication of government.
He cited Gibraltar
and the East Indies specifically.
It is also better for the colonies
themselves to be self-governing.
Neither are alliances in the
interest of Great Britain, because they lead to wars;
also treaties
to give advantage in trade are artificial economically
and are
not useful in the long run.
The naval forces need only be strong
enough to defend commerce against pirates.
The pacification treaties,
which are to limit the number of troops,
are to be publicly announced.
Bentham described the folly of attempting conquest and the madness
of war.
In modern times it is useless to the people.
Bentham believed
that trade is always advantageous to both parties, but war is
ruinous.
Establishing a judicial court is in the interest of all.
Bentham
recommended a Congress of deputies from each country
that should
be public in its proceedings.
Its power is in reporting its decisions
to public opinion.
Here Bentham appeared to be excessively idealistic
in comparison
to Saint-Pierre and Rousseau, who felt the need
for enforcement.
Bentham naively believed that if secrecy were
given up,
the public would no longer support wars.
He pointed
to the example of the Swedish soldiers, who refused to fight Russia.
His pacifist ideas are not wrong,
but they would depend upon
enlightened public opinion.
He declared that the plunging of a
nation into war against its will
by ministers is not only mischievous
but unconstitutional.
He pointed out that punishing the authors
of war
does little good for the people of the nation.
Since the
war-makers cannot be punished effectively,
they ought to be abandoned
by the people.
However, Bentham considered this not possible in
his time.
In war individual crimes are greatly multiplied; yet
they win the approval of people.
Since ministers are not deterred
from misconduct, they are easily seduced
by ambition and greed
into wars, especially when shielded by secrecy.
Bentham's plan is quite sketchy and obviously not comprehensive,
but he did show the usefulness of disarmament and the dangers
of colonialism and secrecy.
He sensed the power of public opinion
but also saw
how effectively it was squelched in his time.
He
did not really present the executive and legislative powers for
a federal system,
as did Saint-Pierre and Rousseau; but he did
establish the principles
of an international judiciary and open
public opinion on international affairs.
Immanuel Kant was born on April 22, 1724 at Königsberg
in East Prussia and lived his whole life there.
His parents were
pious and emphasized inward morality.
In 1740 he entered the University
of Königsberg in theology, but he also studied physics.
After
his father died in 1746, he worked for nine years as a family
tutor.
He lectured at the university on physics, mathematics,
logic,
metaphysics, moral philosophy, geography, and natural sciences.
In 1770 Kant was appointed to the chair of logic and metaphysics.
After working on it for a decade, in 1781 he published his
magnum
opus, the Critique of Pure Reason.
In this book Kant
analyzed how the mind itself structures
our understanding of reality
by conceptual categories.
More books followed, and Kant is considered
by many to be
the greatest philosopher of the age of enlightenment.
Kant held that God, freedom, and immortality are
transcendental
ideas essential to the moral life.
In his ethical works Kant formulated the categorical imperative
as a guide for conduct:
"Act according to the maxim which
can at the same time make itself a universal law."9
Thus
a person of good will always treats others as an end, not as a
means.
Kant found that two things filled his mind with increasing
wonder and awe:
the starry heavens above and the moral law within.
His lectures were popular, and he followed a regular routine.
His daily walks were so punctual that the people of Königsberg
could set their watches by his regular appearance.
The only time
he was known to have missed his daily walk
was when he became
absorbed in reading Rousseau's Emile.
He died on February
12, 1804, and his last words were: "It is good."
Kant's philosophy had a critical perspective, and he showed
how
by using higher human reason and justice
we can transcend
the brutal strife and arguments of war.
Without the control of criticism,
reason is, as it were, in a state of nature,
and can only establish its claims and assertions by war.
Criticism, on the contrary, deciding all questions
according to the fundamental laws of its own institution,
secures to us the peace of law and order,
and enables us to discuss all differences
in the more tranquil manner of a legal process.
In the former case, disputes are ended by victory,
which both sides may claim
and which is followed by a hollow armistice;
in the latter, by a sentence, which,
as it strikes at the root of all speculative differences,
ensures to all concerned a lasting peace.10
In The Science of Right Kant discussed the right of
nations
and international law and also the universal right of
mankind.
Ethically, people ought to be treated as ends in themselves
and not mechanically as a means to some end.
Therefore the ruler
has no right to treat his people
as objects for some warlike purpose.
The people do not owe a duty to the sovereign;
in Kant's view
rather the sovereign has a duty to the people.
As such they must give their free consent,
through their representatives,
not only to the carrying on of war generally,
but to every separate declaration of war;
and it is only under this limiting condition
that the state has a right to demand
their services in undertakings so full of danger.11
Kant defined three rights of peace: neutrality, guarantee,
and alliance.
Neutrality is the right to remain at peace when
a war is nearby.
Guarantee is "the right to have peace secured
so that it may continue when it has been concluded."12
Alliance
is the right of federation, that states
may defend themselves
in common against attack.
However, there is no right of alliance
for
external aggression or internal aggrandizement.
Kant applied the categorical imperative to the relations of
states and rejected
any action or policy which would make peace
among the nations impossible.
Kant pointed out that nations, like
individuals, must enter into a legal state,
in this case, a union
of states, which is the only way
to establish peace and the public
right of nations.
Thus a permanent congress of nations must eventually
become practical
so that differences may be settled by means of
a civil process instead of by barbarous war.
Kant based the right
to a universal peaceful union of all nations
on the juridical
principle of legal justice rather than on the moral ideal
of the
philanthropic or ethical principles.
Because all people originally
share the soil of the Earth,
they have a right to associate with
each other.
Even though perpetual peace may not be real yet,
Kant
emphasized that we must work to realize it as our duty.
He concluded,
The universal and lasting establishment of peace
constitutes not merely a part,
but the whole final purpose and end
of the science of right
as viewed within the limits of reason.13
In his "Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan
Point of View"
Kant stated that Nature forces people to a
cosmopolitan solution,
making a league of nations the inevitable
result of social evolution.
Until then humans must suffer the
cruelty of conflicts.
The answer lies in a moral order, which
can only
be brought about through education.
This enlightenment
requires a commitment of heart
to the good that is clearly understood.
He lamented that rulers spend little money on public education,
because they spend it paying for past and future wars.
Kant predicted
that the ever-growing war debt (which was new in his time)
would
eventually make war impractical economically.
He foresaw that
this and the value of interstate commerce would prepare
the way
eventually for an international government,
even though there
had never been one in world history.
Looking toward the goal of
world citizenship, he suggested that
the philosophical historian
ought to note how various nations
and governments have contributed
to this goal.
Kant felt that war is the greatest obstacle to morality and
that
the preparation for war is the greatest evil; therefore we
must renounce war.
"The morally practical reason utters within
us
its irrevocable veto: There shall be no war."14
Yet without a cosmopolitan constitution and the wisdom to submit
ourselves
voluntarily to its constraint, war is inevitable.
The
obstacles of ambition, love of power, and avarice,
particularly
of those in authority, stand in the way.
Again education must
foster the building of character
in accordance with moral principles.
The full realization of our destiny, the sovereignty of God on
Earth,
ultimately depends not on governments but on justice and
conscience within us.
Kant's major work on peace entitled Perpetual Peace was
published in 1795.
That year in the separate treaty of Basel,
Prussia ceded France territory
west of the Rhine so that it could
partition Poland with Russia and Austria.
Kant was so indignant
at this that he wrote Perpetual Peace
as a just treaty
that could be signed by nations.
He stated six preliminary propositions
for a perpetual peace among states:
1. No treaty of peace shall be held valid
in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war.
2. No independent states, large or small,
shall come under the dominion of another state
by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation.
3. Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished.
4. National debts shall not be contracted
with a view to the external friction of states.
5. No state shall by force interfere with
the constitution or government of another state.
6. No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility
which would make mutual confidence
in the subsequent peace impossible:
such are the employment of assassins,
poisoners, breach of capitulation,
and incitement to treason in the opposing state.15
The reasons for these are fairly obvious.
He added that a state
has no right to wage a punitive war
because just punishment must
come from a superior authority and not an equal.
In introducing the three definitive articles, Kant observed
that
the state of nature tends toward conflict and war;
therefore
peace must be actively established and maintained by a
civil state.
Civil constitutions are of three levels: the law
of persons,
the law of nations, and the law of world citizenship.
The first definitive article states,
"The civil constitution
of every state should be republican."16
By this Kant meant
that the laws must be applied to everyone universally
and fairly - in
other words, government by law, not by favored men.
Thus the principles
of freedom, common legislation, and equality must pertain.
He
hoped that requiring the citizens' consent to declare war
would
prevent its devastation, because it is usually the people,
not
the ruler, who sacrifices and suffers.
By republican Kant meant
representative of the people, but not necessarily democracy,
which
he considered more likely to be despotic than
representative government
by one (autocracy) or a few (aristocracy).
In a pure democracy
it is not possible to separate
the execute power from the legislative
function.
The second definitive article states,
"The law of nations
shall be founded on a federation of free states."17
This
constitution establishes the rights of states through a league
of nations.
Kant noted that Grotius, Pufendorf, Vattel, and many
other irritating comforters
have been cited to justify war, but
their code cannot have legal force.
Victory in war goes to the
stronger, but it does not settle what is right.
At its conclusion
a peace treaty ends that war,
but to end all wars forever there
must be a league of peace.
The more republics associate with each
other,
the more practical a federation becomes.
In the federation
a supreme legislative, executive, and judicial power
may be established
to reconcile the differences between nations peaceably.
But if
nations do not acknowledge these supreme powers,
then how can
they safeguard their rights?
Using unilateral maxims through force
leads to
"perpetual peace in the vast grave that swallows
both the atrocities and their perpetrators."18
Therefore
states must give up their savage (lawless) freedom in order to
find a greater freedom and security within the constraints of
public law.
The third definitive article states, "The law of world
citizenship
shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality."19
Everyone has the right not to be treated as an enemy when arriving
in another land.
How prophetic Kant was when he wrote,
"The
narrower or wider community of the peoples of the earth has developed
so far
that a violation of rights in one place is felt throughout
the world."20
Thus he did not consider a law of world citizenship
high-flown nor exaggerated
but rather indispensable for human
rights and perpetual peace.
The guarantee for perpetual peace, for Kant, is the design
and process of world history which we call providence.
People
have spread throughout the Earth and have been forced
to develop
lawful relations with each other.
States were formed for defense
against violations, and man has been forced
to be good for the
sake of others by laws to keep the peace.
Although differences
of language and religion have kept states separate,
competition
nevertheless maintains an equilibrium,
and commerce has made peace
far preferable to war.
Kant argued that politics must eventually be moral because
the moral laws are eternal and transcendent of political stratagems.
Like Bentham, Kant emphasized that justice must be public and
open to scrutiny.
He reasoned that political maxims must be able
to be public in order to be legitimate;
those which need publicity
in order to succeed are both right
and politically advantageous
because they must
be in accord with the public's universal good.
Therefore it is our duty to publicly promote those policies
which
lead to the universal good of lasting peace.
1. Emile or On Education by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, tr.
Allan Bloom, p. 473.
2. The Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, tr. W. Conyngham
Mallory, p. 635-636.
3. Ibid., p. 661.
4. A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe by
Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
tr. C. E. Vaughan.
5. Second Discourse by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, tr. Roger
D. and Judith R. Masters, p. 161.
6. A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe by
Jean-JacquesRousseau,
tr. C. E. Vaughan.
7. The Principles of Morals and Legislation by Jeremy Bentham,
p. 2.
8. A Plan for an Universal and Perpetual Peace by Jeremy
Bentham in Jeremy Bentham
by Charles W. Everett, p. 221.
9. Foundations of the Metaphysic of Morals, Second Section
436 by Immanuel Kant,
tr. Lewis White Beck, p. 63.
10. The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, tr. J.
M. D. Meiklejohn, p. 222.
11. The Science of Right 55 by Immanuel Kant, tr. W. Hastie.
12. Ibid., 69.
13. Ibid., Conclusion.
14. Ibid.
15. Perpetual Peace 343-346 by Immanuel Kant, tr. Lewis
White Beck et al, p. 85-89.
16. Ibid., 349, p. 93.
17. Ibid., 354, p. 98.
18. Ibid., 357, p. 101.
19. Ibid., 357, p. 102.
20. Ibid., 360, p. 105.
This is a chapter in Guides to Peace and Justice from Ancient Sages to the Suffragettes,
which is published as a book.
For ordering information, please click here.