Is Perpetual Peace possible?

[AutSider]

This is the philosophical sketch by Kant that incited me to think about this topic and make this thread:

mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm#fn1

Kant lays down several preliminary articles which are the necessary conditions for achieving perpetual peace (according to Kant) and after that the definitive articles. Most of them I find quite reasonable if perpetual peace is put forward as a goal and I won’t add much commentary on his in my OP because his text is perfectly comprehensible and I don’t think I can elaborate on Kant’s points better than Kant himself did so I’d just be regurgitating what Kant already said more eloquently.

My main issue is that most of the articles are somewhat unrealistic and dated. In an ideal world, where everybody would abide by Kant’s rules, I think Perpetual Peace would be possible. Perhaps in some distant future of our world too. But it appears that humans now are so hellbent on war and destruction that the situation for now is beyond salvation.

Some of Kant’s points I would like to point out and/or rephrase:

1. Gradual abolishing of military.

A form of minor local defense for enforcing the law is acceptable, but the large and heavily armed military should be gradually abolished for the reasons stated by Kant in the 3rd preliminary article. Important thing to point out is the word “Gradual”, which means over time, and not sudden, which would leave the country open to attack. The obvious issue is convincing certain belligerent countries to participate in disarming and abolishing the military which could prove impossible.

“No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War”

Otherwise a treaty would be only a truce, a suspension of hostilities but not peace, which means the end of all hostilities–so much so that even to attach the word “perpetual” to it is a dubious pleonasm. The causes for making future wars (which are perhaps unknown to the contracting parties) are without exception annihilated by the treaty of peace, even if they should be dug out of dusty documents by acute sleuthing.

A reasonable request. If every treaty of peace was made in such a way and respected the wars in the future would be prevented.

5. “No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State”

For what is there to authorize it to do so? The offense, perhaps, which a state gives to the subjects of another state? Rather the example of the evil into which a state has fallen because of its lawlessness should serve as a warning. Moreover, the bad example which one free person affords another as a scandalum acceptum is not an infringement of his rights. But it would be quite different if a state, by internal rebellion, should fall into two parts, each of which pretended to be a separate state making claim to the whole. To lend assistance to one of these cannot be considered an interference in the constitution of the other state (for it is then in a state of anarchy) . But so long as the internal dissension has not come to this critical point, such interference by foreign powers would infringe on the rights of an independent people struggling with its internal disease; hence it would itself be an offense and would render the autonomy of all states insecure.

So basically, a state that has fallen into a state of anarchy is no longer a state so interfering is permitted. Fair enough, but what criteria does one use to determine when the state (country) has fallen into a state of anarchy so that interfering is justified? Doesn’t this give room for another state to interfere and support 1 of the 2 factions by claiming the country has fallen into a state of anarchy?

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 (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State”

These are dishonorable stratagems. For some confidence in the character of the enemy must remain even in the midst of war

Isn’t war itself such an act of hostility which makes mutual confidence and subsequent peace impossible? This rule seems to favor the state with more raw military force and therefore less likely to lose due to a direct conflict and more likely to lose due to underhanded tactics. I think attacking somebody’s country isn’t any worse than employing an assassin or a poisoner to kill a relevant person. Both are despicable.

This sentence by Kant himself doesn’t exactly speak in favor of Perpetual Peace being possible either:

The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state (status naturalis); the natural state is one of war. This does not always mean open hostilities, but at least an unceasing threat of war. A state of peace, therefore, must be established, for in order to be secured against hostility it is not sufficient that hostilities simply be not committed; and, unless this security is pledged to each by his neighbor (a thing that can occur only in a civil state), each may treat his neighbor, from whom he demands this security, as an enemy.3

Let’s say that Perpetual Peace is possible and established in the world and there are no more wars between states. What about any other minor conflicts then, such as hundreds of soccer fans beating on each other? Can we truly say we established perpetual peace when there is still violence and conflict? If so, at which point can we say that the number of people in a conflict is large enough to constitute a war and put an end to peace? Isn’t any number we put forward arbitrary? Wouldn’t perpetual peace then necessarily entail the cessation of any and all physical conflicts between people? Can humans overcome their nature through obedience towards laws or some other means?

[Lev_Muishkin]

There will only be peace when every human gene has been destroyed.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Lev Muishkin

There will only be peace when every human gene has been destroyed.

Are you serious?

[AutSider]

@Dan~

@Lev Muishkin

There will only be peace when every human gene has been destroyed.

Are you serious?

I don’t think Lev meant that humans SHOULD be exterminated, but that he sees the existence of humans and (perpetual) peace incompatible.

[Orbie]

When everyone comes to the necessary realization that to see the boulder within their own eyes? Is this possible?

[Uccisore]

@Atheris

A reasonable request. If every treaty of peace was made in such a way and respected the wars in the future would be prevented.

So all we need for world peace is for all the countries in the world to get together and sign a paper saying that they will never, under any circumstances, go to war.  The ultimate peace treaty. 

Sounds stupid, huh? Well, it’s just as stupid between two countries as it is between all countries. A reason why peace treaties are specific about the conditions of peace is because that’s what makes them believable. If you had a grievance with somebody, wouldn’t you feel much better having them sign a specific contract vowing that they will no longer do what caused the grievance, and the compensation/punishment involved should they transgress, than having sign something saying “I will never do anything bad to you ever again?”

[AutSider]

@Orb

When everyone comes to the necessary realization that to see the boulder within their own eyes? Is this possible?

I think so, yes. Humans are becoming more and more self-aware as time passes, we are a lot more likely to introspect and reflect on our mistakes than in the past. It requires a great deal of sincerity to do it though, much more than the average person is capable of. It’s much easier to lie to others and play victim, gradually convincing yourself of the lie too.

I interpreted your “boulder within their own eyes” to mean the same as “thorn within their own eyes”, is that what you meant or did I misunderstand you?

So all we need for world peace is for all the countries in the world to get together and sign a paper saying that they will never, under any circumstances, go to war. The ultimate peace treaty.
Sounds stupid, huh? Well, it’s just as stupid between two countries as it is between all countries. A reason why peace treaties are specific about the conditions of peace is because that’s what makes them believable. If you had a grievance with somebody, wouldn’t you feel much better having them sign a specific contract vowing that they will no longer do what caused the grievance, and the compensation/punishment involved should they transgress, than having sign something saying “I will never do anything bad to you ever again?”

Just because it’s unrealistic in the current context of events and state our planet is in doesn’t mean it won’t be achievable in a hundred of years or more (or even less, you never know). I’d think twice before calling an idea about Perpetual Peace by somebody as prominent as Immanuel Kant “stupid” so lightly, I think it should at least be given some serious consideration, of course I’m not saying it’s necessarily possible or that his conditions are infallible. I think Perpetual Peace is an absolute worth striving towards, even if it’s impossible to achieve and realize completely.

Doesn’t a large enough set of specific contracts eventually amount to “I will never do anything bad to you ever again?”? Changing one single circumstance of their previous action is enough for that person to do a different (but almost the same) kind of transgression against me without breaking the contract if I only have them sign a specific contract. If I have them sign “I will never do anything bad to you ever again” I could appeal to the law in a larger number of cases and I’d feel safer.