This reflective essay examines personal attitudes toward war through the lens of Kantian political philosophy, particularly Immanuel Kant's concept of "Perpetual Peace." The paper explores how democratic constitutions and citizen consent function as checks on war-making, arguing that populations who bear the costs of conflict are more likely to favor negotiation over force. It contrasts American and European approaches to international disputes and contends that ideological beliefs, national identification, and authoritarian tendencies shape pro-war attitudes. The essay concludes by applying these principles to modern conflicts in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, suggesting that a more deliberate, rules-based approach to foreign policy could help nations avoid unnecessary wars.
My attitudes on dealing with upcoming world events and war change considerably, particularly in light of reports and research conducted on the issue of democracy. The antecedents of war attitudes may include national identification and authoritarian ideological beliefs, while the consequences of war include the intention to engage in pro-war behaviors. The different approaches to major international issues have given rise to arguments that incline people toward believing that war is not the ultimate solution. Attitudes toward war tend to be positively related to nonegalitarian ideologies and beliefs, but less so to personal distress. These dynamics form the foundation from which a reasoned personal position on war can be developed — one that draws heavily on political philosophy and the lived costs that conflict imposes on ordinary citizens.
I support Kant's notion of "Perpetual Peace", where democratic peace comes into play. Countries that have democratic constitutions have demonstrated the importance of obtaining the consent of their citizens before waging war against their enemies. This makes citizens a determinant factor: if they decide to engage in war, then they must also bear the full weight of its horrors. At such a level, the population of a given country must internalize the costs of its war behavior, and by doing so, it organizes itself into a liberal world where states are regulated by law (Carothers, 1997).
The Kantian framework envisions a self-contained world governed by laws and rules — one that can translate negotiation and cooperation into a systematic process, enabling nations to enter a post-historic era of peace and prosperity. This is not merely an idealistic vision; it is a practical framework that recognizes the severe human and economic costs of armed conflict and places the responsibility for those costs squarely on the shoulders of those who authorize them.
The sanguine nature of Kant's outlook on the prospects for peace may, to some observers, appear to describe an unachievable goal. Human beings are naturally antagonistic. Their existence in both intelligible and sensuous worlds predisposes them to engage in wars as a means of proving their power and dominance. However, they are also capable of applying the laws of reason — though it must be acknowledged that such reason is not equally accessible to all human beings. Some people may choose to disobey the law, invoking war to the detriment of others, and this inclination reflects a capacity for moral evil that political institutions must be designed to constrain.
Kantian beliefs therefore support the idea of negotiation and compromise as the preferred means of resolving disputes, rather than resorting to armed conflict. The attitude that societies should adopt toward war is one oriented toward a rules-based international order — a system that prioritizes cooperation and legal mediation over unilateral force.
On questions of diplomacy, the United States and Europe have taken the issue in very different directions. Americans have historically been quicker to apply military force. This tendency is reflected domestically in policies permitting widespread civilian gun ownership, and internationally in a worldview that frames global divisions in binary terms — friends and enemies, good and evil (Kagan, 2002). Europeans, by contrast, tend to consider a broader range of factors that favor peaceful responses when addressing their international problems. Rather than defaulting to force, European foreign policy has generally emphasized multilateral diplomacy, legal frameworks, and economic interdependence as tools for conflict prevention.
This contrast illustrates a deeper philosophical divide. The American approach, as Kagan (2002) describes it, reflects a confidence in hard power and a willingness to act unilaterally. The European approach, shaped in part by the catastrophic experience of two World Wars on the continent, reflects a commitment to building the very international institutions and norms that Kant envisioned as the foundation of perpetual peace.
"U.S. force versus European peaceful problem-solving"
"Kant applied to Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan wars"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.