Kant and Hegel 26 September 2008

Perpetual Peace: Definitive Articles “The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican” (principle of civil right) “The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States” (principle of international right) “The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality” (principle of cosmopolitan right)

How is a republican constitution possible? “The problem of organizing a state, however hard it may seem, can be solved even for a race of devils, if only they are intelligent.”

Republican constitutions Even if human nature is “depraved” we can create constitutions that have a peaceful tendency, because evil inclinations tend to cancel each other out

A federation of free states What is a federation of free states? Why would it promote peace? How is it possible?

What is a federation of free states? It is not a world state or a superstate It is concerned only with regulating international disputes among its members

Why not a world state? Peace in a world state would be accomplished at the cost of freedom Nature separates us through language and culture If we escape the state of nature (which in Kant is a state of war) through a state, ought we not to take the next step and form a world state? The reasons that Kant gives are less moral than practical

Why is this peaceful? It is a federation of free states, i.e., republican states Such states would be tied together by relations which make war much more costly

How is it possible? A powerful free people may serve as the nucleus of a federation, which might then grow Or several regional federations might grow over time

Cosmopolitan Right as the Right of Hospitality What is it? Why does it lead to peace? How is it possible?

What is the right of hospitality? The right to visit and trade (not necessarily to live) Remember Vitoria

How does this lead to peace? Trade is ultimately incompatible with war It counteracts our natural “separating” tendencies (via language, culture, etc.) and creates mutual understanding Kant argues against “conquest” in the name of trade Kant’s essay is itself a marvel of cosmopolitan enlightenment – full of sympathetic references to places and people that he never visited

How is it possible? The “spirit of trade” sooner or later dominates every people This is not a “moral” motive, but it can be come the basis of peace anyway

The guarantee of perpetual peace What do we have to assume about nature, and in particular about human nature, to think that perpetual peace is not hopeless?

The guarantee of perpetual peace Nature itself wills peace through war: People can live everywhere People live everywhere because of war Yet because of war and the finitude of the globe we have learned and can learn (we have been compelled to learn or will be compelled to learn) to establish legal relations in all three important respects (civil, international, and cosmopolitan right)

The guarantee of perpetual peace Civil right Discord (internal) or war (external) forces men to establish constitutions where their evil inclinations cancel each other out The fact that the globe is fully occupied guarantees that each people must form itself as a state to defend itself

The guarantee of perpetual peace International right Each people wants to work towards peace, dominated by itself But each people is divided from the others by language and religion, which prevents a world state War itself can be a learning mechanism in the process of forming federations Consider the history of the EU

The guarantee of perpetual peace Cosmopolitan right The “spirit of trade” counteracts the separating tendencies of nature, though it is not a moral impulse

The guarantee of perpetual peace The idea is that we can believe that nature will do this for us even if we do not follow our duties Yet the guarantee is only a “moral hypothesis”, not a theoretical certainty: we can’t really predict the future, and we are not theoretically entitled to find “purpose” in history

The secret article "The opinions of philosophers on the conditions of the possibility of public peace shall be consulted by those states armed for war." it is a “secret article” not because it is literally secret, but because Kant is suggesting that for sovereigns to acknowledge this publicly would amount to a loss of face. Perhaps no longer applicable today? (A joke by Kant)

The Maxim of Publicity All maxims that we adopt to guide our political conduct must be capable of being made public. What does this imply for the possibility of establishing republican constitutions? But is morality compatible with politics?

Implications We must work through reform; revolution is not right or just in any circumstances Promises are to be kept even when they adversely affect the welfare of the state Preemptive attacks are not right or just

Hegel History as the unfolding of “spirit” (Geist) in human cultural forms Philosophy as the retrospective description of the rationality of this unfolding

The forms of community The family: the realm of unconditional love Civil society: the realm of self-interested individual interactions The state: the ethical realm

The Family Human beings are members of families unconditionally; membership does not depend on free activity Individuality requires the possibility of negation Hence the family cannot provide a context of recognition necessary for a person to become a free individual

Civil Society In civil society, human beings appear as possessors of individual rights Makes possible individuality through the mutual recognition that conflict and opposition bring; membership depends on free activity, and can be negated Leads to “social contract” theories of the political community

The State Embodies the shared values of a people in a rational form (law) Conceives of human beings as parts of a larger whole, lifting them beyond their self-interest and giving content to “empty” universal rules of morality Related to, but not identical with, the volk or nation as a cultural entity

The state as an ethical community Composed of classes with a specific purpose The monarch: represents the “unity” and “individuality” of the state The military: sacrifices itself for the state The civil servants: embody the “universality” of the values of the state in their concern for the rule of law The bourgeoisie

Hegel: the nation-state The self-conscious form of the “spirit” as a purposely cultivated cultural life in political form Hegel makes no assumption that there must be one state per nation, however Each nation-state a distinct manifestation of spirit and so a form of right: each state is sovereign with respect to every other Like individuals, it requires recognition by other states in order to attain this self-consciousness Recognition demands plurality and conflict

Hegel’s Critique of Kant A federation of states distinct from a world superstate depends always on the contingent agreement of states, who as sovereign individuals can always determine that they have a right not to agree Individuality implies the possibility of negation

Hegel’s critique of Kant War is not entirely bad: there is a rational purpose to war in history that is not purely instrumental (e.g., as the means to universal peace)

War and the state War results from the concern of each state for its own welfare and recognition War enhances shared values – the unity of the state Lifts people out of their concern with material possessions characteristic of civil society: promotes civic virtue (as “selflessness”) Enhances the unity of the state which is likely to fragment by prolonged peace War not an occasion for individual heroism

Limits on war War should be limited by the fact of mutual recognition: it ought to come to an end in a way that preserves the possibility of peace Hostility in modern war should be abstract, not individualized War is a conflict between states, and hence militaries as the class of people who have the function of warmaking in the state and embody its courage Yet war can always devolve into a war of survival; this is necessary for war to serve its function

Limits on war The treatment of soldiers, etc. depends merely on customs, but these customs embody valid conceptions of right in a historical time period In modern times war is limited in the European context through common customs, etc.

Limits on war War is not to be justified with reference to its general salutary effects in any particular case The justification of any particular war will always have to do with the specific “welfare” of a state, but not with the abstract preservation of a state’s unity

Some problems Hegel predicts that modern warfare will be more “rational” because more abstract and less individualized The “individuality” or “sovereignty” of the state is in tension with the idea that war must, and can, be limited The idea of a historical unfolding of the spirit leading to the ethical state seems to lead to perpetual peace anyway (“The End of History”)