Kant's Perpetual Peace

Kant's "Perpetual Peace" In the paragraph beginning "Now in addition to .. " Kant is arguing that the republican constitution provides "purity of origin and source" (Kant, 113) or true interpretation of the law. A republican constitution, which by definition must be representative of a republic and the people existing within, must ultimately be concerned with the concept of perpetual peace.

How can the republican constitution provide perpetual peace? Kant states that when a republican constitution is utilized, it must follow that in order for war to be declared the citizens of a nation must consent to this war (Kant, 113). Again, this is due to the fact that a republican constitution is not authoritarian or despotic in nature, but rather represents the will and desires of the citizenry of the land.

Kant argues that the citizenry of any state in a republic will have to consider all of the consequences of war prior to agreeing that the risk inherent in partaking in war is worthwhile (Kant, 113). This argument might also ring true for the citizens of a democracy, such as the citizens of the United States. In theory under a democratic constitution the declaration of war can't occur simply on the whim of the nation's ruler. Rather, the ruler must act according to the will of the people.

The Congress or representatives of the citizens of the nation must agree to declare war, and indeed often taken into consideration is the devastation that war might induce on the homeland. However, a democracy differs somewhat from a republic in that the will of the people may be acted out by the will of one person who is not necessarily, representing the true will of the citizens. Long standing or perpetual peace according to Kant can only be acquired therefore through moral consideration on the part of the citizenry.

This moral consideration will occur within the boundaries of a republican constitution, where the consequences of any such action are heavily weighed. However, one must note that the natural state of affairs is typically one of conflict, and even if the will of the majority is such that war is unappealing, it still seems to occur with great frequency.

Kant points out that among the considerations of the citizenry prior to agreeing to war, are the facts that the citizens themselves may put their lives at risk by going to fight the war (Kant, 113). Additionally the citizens partaking in the war effort will have to subsidize the war via out of pocket expenses or taxes.

Also keep in mind that in some manner the citizenry will be responsible for repairing the damage inflicted on their homeland and perhaps another because of the devastation naturally inflicted during times of calamity (Kant, 113). This is very often true, however in most situations the benefits of going to war in some people's minds often outweigh the consequences of remaining at peace.

Most people even within a republican constitution will agree to go to war at the expense of their safety and pocketbooks to protect the free will and livelihood of themselves and/or their country. The protection of the innocent is also a staggering factor to be considered. War in this respect seems a more natural state of affairs than peace, thus it is a difficult state to acquire.

Kant also argues in this passage however that the "ultimate evil" (Kant, 113) of war is that it may not allow for peace at any point, because further war is spurned as a result of the debt that is often incurred from the act of war itself (Kant, 113). Most countries Kant would argue, agree that the easiest method of relieving debt is to again declare war (Kant, 113). This argument however is objectionable, as most countries try to alleviate and avoid debt as much as possible.

The citizenry of any nation that take into consideration the grave consequences of agreeing to go to war are unlikely to continue to war with other nations solely with the intention of relieving debt. Agreeing to go to war will only spawn new debt besides. Thus this particular argument seems fallible. Kant follows by pointing out that in countries ruled by non-republican constitution, the subjects of a nation are not citizens and in control, and therefore declaring war is made "almost too easy" (Kant, 113).

In such situations, a country is not ruled by the popular declarations or desires of the people, but rather the ruler is in and of himself "the nation's owner" (Kant, 113). In this situation Kant believes that war will not affect the ruler and his lifestyle necessarily, thus under such circumstances deciding to go to war for no "very good reason at all is quite a common affair" (Kant, 113). Justification of war under such circumstances as a non-republican constitution is not warranted (Kant, 113).

A ruler in an authoritative or despotic role has no one to answer to but himself. He does not have to answer or even listen to the cries of the citizenry, as is the case with the people of a republic or democracy. This makes war an inevitable and constant fact of life for countries existing under such leadership.

Such leadership is not representative in nature, and the leader deciding to go to war has no moral obligations or considerations that are pressing enough under most situations to prevent him from engaging in calamity. The non-republican constitution thus thwarts all efforts toward perpetual peace. Perhaps here Kant is observing the frequency of war that is declared in nations and countries ruled by someone considered the nations "owner." True, in the sense that some countries are.