1. Applying Kant to the issue of.. War
Which parts of Kant’s theory will you discuss & how?
Autonomous Agents
Deontological
Good Will
Hypothetical Imperative
Summum Bonum
Categorical Imperative
3 Postulates of Practical Reason: God, immortality, freedom of soul
Rational
A priori synthetic
3 formulations:
Universalisability
Treat others as ends not means
Kingdom of Ends
Perfect & Imperfect Duties
Testing C.I.
Contradiction in Conception
Contradiction in Will
Ought from Is

2. Some background info.. Kant’s general views on taking life:
“It is permissible to kill”. Contradiction in conception, conflicts with universal law to preserve life.
But how about the following?
“It is permissible to kill when doing so is the only available means of defense against an attacker”. / “It is permissible to kill when doing so I act to preserve my innocent life”
Capital Punishment:
No state can exist without laws. Enforcing the law is protecting the society and the state. Thus, any person violating the law loses the right to be a society member, opposes social order and consequently must be deemed guilty and punished. We live in an imperfect world, & justice needs to be done.
The right to administer punishment is the right of a ruler. It is impossible to punish the ruler himself since the authority to administer punishment belongs to him. A ruler can retire due to his crimes but cannot be punished. necessary, and justifiable
Suicide, Euthanasia: out of self love, I will end my life? Contradicts will to life, by removing life itself.

3. In War:
PEACE is the ultimate goal and condition of humanity – to enable all our ends to be achieved.
For Kant, war is a natural state:
- we have innate natural tendencies towards aggression - an unfortunate consequence of our human condition.
But barriers to peace lie in the widespread failure to apply our reason properly : if all rationally followed CI about killing only to preserve innocent life, would end war.
monograph "Perpetual Peace" (1795) Kant provided principles by which nation states could avoid war. He did believe that just war was sometimes justified

4. Just War – according to Kant
Peace is the proper condition of humanity and all other acts should defer to it. Therefore war is the gravest injustice and should be avoided. For a just war, the means & ends must be moral.
Good Will – intentions must be moral
Autonomy must be respected, of the state and of its citizens.
Unjust war is any government action, that if universalised, makes peace impossible in the world. Eg violation of treaties, annexing other territories. But war is not unjust, if the state is under unjust conditions
ENDS
Nation states are “moral persons” and have the right to defend their existence & autonomy
autonomy: free to govern themselves. Against: being under domination of another state (eg Israel/ Palestine conflict; imposing “regime change” on a state).
self-preservation/ self-defence - including defence against another state’s menacing increase of power (annexations, getting nuclear weapons)
MEANS
- the nation does not “own” its citizens, who are free autonomous agents (co-legislators) in their own right. They must give their consent to be armed to fight.
- means must not be make its citizens unfit to be citizens - using assassins, poisoners, and snipers, or using disseminators of false propaganda –in general, any means used that could destroy any lasting peace settlement.
- victory in war must respect civilians rights eg not plunder their property, as war is declared on the state, not its civilians
States do NOT have legal authority to
Cannot “punish” another state (unless some world government body emerges with this right – UN?)
Cannot aim to exterminate or dominate an enemy – as all states have a right to preserve themselves
Cannot try to defend themselves by acquiring other states (imperialism)

5. Your turn…flesh out the following skeleton plan
Absolute duty to follow reason. Duty is discovered by applying reason, in 3 Formulations of the CI. (A priori synthetic).. Explain this.
Discuss: categorical imperatives relating to killing: can they be universalised?
Hypothetical imperatives – why not?
Heteronomy: following other authorities (Isis version of “Divine Command”) – why not?
If we feel awareness of duty (force of the C.I) : then ought implies can ?
Just War:
-good will: act on right intentions; eschewing H.Is (Hitler’s lebensraum)
- issues of autonomy: of nation states, of citizens. (eg Israel/ Palestine)
- issues of self-preservation: of nation states (eg Hitler’s lebensraum)
Unjust war: definition.
consider
unjust means – landmines, torture, nuclear, acquiring territory: explain why, on 2nd F/ 3rd F;
unjust ends – autonomy (Iraq: regime change, if really no WMD): explain why, 2nd F grounds) / To exterminate (Rwandan genocide) / to punish (France – Paris bombing retaliation?)
Evaluate
Contradicts CI prohibition against killing?
Comparison with Kant’s views on capital punishment

6. Evaluation
Does his prohibition against killing as universalised in the C.I. contradict his acceptance of just war?
Or fits in with view of execution of criminals, who “lose membership” of world community by their crimes?
And that we have a right not to be treated as means to their evil ends.?
In Just war, is it not better to breach a convention, if war could be ended faster? Eg use of certain weapons, or targetting civilians eg Hiroshima? Consequentialist view.