Is peace possible: philosophical and practical perspectives

¶ … Peace Possible in the Modern World?

Is peace possible in the world as we know it today? One side of the human brain, if idealistic, might reply: "Certainly peace is possible, even perpetual peace, but it is possible only if visionary, bold and intelligent leadership emerges in key international places." The other side of the brain could well answer like this: "Are you kidding? There are too many terrorists, and too many greedy, power-crazed nationalist leaders pushing and shoving and developing weapons to ever expect a peaceful world." And meanwhile, what did some of the great thinkers and philosophers have to say about the prospects of peace?

THUCYDIDES: Thucydides, in writing about the Peloponnesian War, makes it clear that human nature tends to dictate how history plays itself out, and he does not blame the Gods or other forces for this war. Thucydides, who is a young man, and an intellectual, is living in Athens; he writes (38) at great length about the many differences between the Athenian life (his life) and the style of living in Sparta. In his explanation of the differences between education in his city state, Athens, and education in Sparta, he writes that "from their earliest boyhood" the Spartans "are submitted to the most laborious training in courage"

. The Athenians, on the other hand, according to the writings of Thucydides, " ... pass our lives without all these restrictions, and yet are just as ready to face the same dangers as they are."

As more evidence that Athens is the more worthy, the more generous, literate, informed and intelligent society, Thucydides (39) writes: "We Athenians, in our own persons, take our decisions on policy or submit them to proper discussions: for we do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds ... " What is bad for a nation, he continues, " ... is to rush into action before the consequences have been properly debated ... we are capable at the same time of taking risks and of estimating them beforehand."

(Here, Thucydides is saying about war in his time what others in 2004 are saying about the U.S. war on -- and occupation of -- Iraq. President George W. Bush, according to his opponent, Senator John Kerry, did what Thucydides says a nation should not do, and that is "rush into action before the consequences have been properly debated." Is peace possible under Thucydides' philosophies? Idealism is important, and brains rather than weapons make for what should be a peaceful society. But while Thucydides makes a very intelligent argument for a thoughtful approach to building a society that can win a war, and then restore peace, Athens lost the Peloponnesian War.)

NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI: This thinker believed that if a conquering nation seizes control of another territory through war, and that territory is "in the same country, with the same language ... It is extremely easy to hold them, especially if they are not used to governing themselves"

(259). From what Machiavelli writes, he is certainly not talking about ways to bring about peace on the planet during his time (in the early 16th Century), but rather he is writing "political realism" -- and partly based on his readings of ancient Roman power and politics.

The philosophy he promoted for a nation to hold on to power when that nation rules a colony is to become "a protector of the neighboring minor powers and contrive to weaken those who are powerful within the country itself" (260). "Contrive" is a word that does not sound like sincerity, and it is not; and further, on page 261, Machiavelli describes what a ruler must do to "maintain his power." If that ruler, Machiavelli writes, "persists in doing what ought to be done," he then "will undermine his power rather than maintain it." And, a ruler who "wishes to maintain his power must be prepared to act immorally" when "necessary."

Is the Machiavellian attitude correct for building peace in the world? It does not seem that way at all. But since "peace" for greedy and ruthless leaders means controlling other countries, from that point-of-view, the world -- which already has too many leaders who are greedy, violent and power-hungry -- will never be peaceful.

HUGO GROTIUS: He sets out to explain his views on the laws of war and peace by saying that just because man is "an animal" there is not necessarily truth in the "assertion that every animal is impelled by nature to seek only its own good"

. Man has "the power of discrimination which enables him to decide what things are agreeable or harmful ... [and therefore can avoid] the allurement of immediate pleasure ... " (327).

And so, he continues (328), saying that it is "a rule of the law of nature to abide by pacts (for it was necessary that among men there be some method of obligating themselves one to another) ... "

Grotius states (330) that "justice brings peace of conscience, while injustice causes torments and anguish." And yet, he also says that he has witnessed the fact that "... In war all laws are in abeyance ... " and in fact "men rush to arms for slight causes, or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken up there is no longer any respect for law." Where is justice if wars can be fought for "slight causes" or for "no cause at all"? In his last statements (339-340), Grotius says a man should be willing to go "as far forth" for peace as for his own defense. And he ends with a version of the Golden Rule ("What you would not have done unto you, do not do unto others"), which is nice, but in this world, it is irrelevant when it comes to nations' hunger for power, weapons, and riches. Grotius' views are the most appealing when it comes to what can be done to promote peace, but his ideas won't impress leaders in North Korea, or Hamas in Palestine.

IMMANUEL KANT: This famous philosopher also talks about human nature, as Grotius did, but he also shows that he is an unrealistic idealist, when he writes (430) that the "sheer exhaustion" from all the wars "must eventually perform what goodwill ought to have done but failed to do: each state must be organized internally in such a way that the head of state, for whom the war actually costs nothing ... must no longer have the deciding vote on whether war is to be declared or not ... "

Kant takes his idealism a step further (432) by saying that he cannot see human nature "so deeply immersed in evil that practical moral reason will not triumph in the end ... " It would be nice if today's world worked that way, but it doesn't, and as a result, peace is not possible in a world of so many nations with so many varied interests and agendas.