Perpetual Peace concept
28
Apr
Perpetual Peace was Kant’s political proposal, in a way it is expressed in the liberal view of thought about peace, with some nuances in countries from the Soviet period, but as a rule, the normal there is the Roman vision of the pax romana that was the submission of enemies.
As we saw in the previous post, for Kant, smart as snakes and false as doves, Machiavelli, in a very different way in his “Prince”, also spoke of dividing and ruling, a principle that is analyzed by Kant ( Divide et impera, p. 39), in this case it stops as a false freedom of opposing ideas when the supreme chief “disunites them and isolates them from the people”.
The work To perpetual peace was written by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, in 1795. The uniqueness of Kant’s contribution lies in his faith in a perpetual peace that is built because reason has more strength than power, “… reason, from the seat of the highest moral legislative power, condemns war as a juridical way and, on the other hand, makes the state of peace an immediate duty, which, however, cannot be established or guaranteed without a pact between peoples: – there must therefore be a federation of a special type, which can be called the federation of peace (foedus pacificum), which would be distinguished from the peace pact (pactum pacis), since the latter would try to end a war …” (KANT, 2008, p. 17-18).
But when would it then be fair to make war? What would be the limit of reason? Kant speaks first of revolt within a nation subjected to a tyrant: “Is revolt the legitimate means for a people to reject the oppressive power of the so-called tyrant [non titulo, sed exercitio talis (‘tyrant in the exercise of power, not in your denomination’)]? The rights of the people are forfeited and no injustice is done to them (the tyrant) through dethronement; in this respect there is no doubt. However, it is most unjust on the part of subjects to claim their right in this way, and they cannot complain of injustice if they are defeated in this struggle and then have to endure the most severe punishments” (Kant, 2008, p. 47).
As we saw in the previous post, for Kant, smart as snakes and false as doves, Machiavelli, in a very different way in his “Prince”, also spoke of dividing and ruling, a principle that is analyzed by Kant (. Divide et impera, p. 39, in this case it stops as a false freedom of opposing ideas when the supreme chief “disunites them and isolates them from the people”.
There are interesting points in his proposal divided into articles: a republican civil constitution (today there are peoples with other forms of government and which are not always tyrannies), a “federation of free nations” as the principle of hospitality (the problem of migrants today) and then he makes a series of “supplements” to perpetual peace, but basically it’s a defense of reason.
It also touches on the interesting point, as we have already said with regard to world wars, that peace must not be based on possibilities that can open new future wars.
Today, it is necessary to analyze the light of the original culture of the peoples, not only indigenous and various pre or post-enlightenment nations (where a certain form of reason prevails, remember the Greek State and Roman law), and also the economic, war and now also cyber.
Perpetual peace isn´t or any other form of lasting peace must look to a more humane and fraternal civilization, without which any argument for war is possible.
KANT, I. A paz perpétua. Trad. Artur Mourão. Portugal: Universidade da Beira Interior Covilhã, 2008
