Essay Sample on Perspectives on Perpetual Peace: Kantian Vision and Wilsonian Idealism

Peace and war have since time immemorial constituted the intrinsic features of mankind with philosophers from different eras portraying the prospects of creating and maintaining peace. Immanuel Kant and Woodrow Wilson in their literature link this supposition to human nature that lusts for respect, prestige, and power. As such, Wilson questions the basis of contemporary war by saying, “is the present war a struggle for a just and secure place or only for a new balance of power?” (Wilson 148). Similarly, Kant states that "States do not plead their cause before a tribunal; war alone is their way of bringing suit" (Kant 140). The suit here could refer to respect, prestige, and power. The two authors believe that this drive is characteristic of personages as well as entire realms and that perpetual peace should be the liberal thought in international relations. Wilson (148) argues that the existence of a community of power between two nations would promote peace as both would realize their capabilities to create massive damage toward the opponent. Therefore, this paper focuses on the main arguments of the Kantian view as well as those presented by Wilson. Also, it critically but succinctly analyses the texts to come up with the similarities and differences in beliefs depicted by the two authors.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Kant (138) postulates that hostilities among individuals, which is the natural state of things, could become a war of extermination if meaningful peace never prevails. In his text, the author suggests the formal institution of a state of peace is more effective as a strategy than suspending disagreements as doing away with hostilities does not guarantee amity. Therefore, wars should be avoided at all costs for the prevalence of mankind in centuries to come (Kant 138).

Conversely, Wilson mainly focuses on delineating the dire need for peace without a clear victor and a community of power rather than a balance of power. According to Wilson, a community of power expels all organized rivalries and creates long-lasting peace. Further, the author regards a democracy to be another way of ensuring peace (Wilson 148). Here are the results of the exploration from the work by the two philosophers:

Both philosophers believe in the idea of democracy to promote universal peace. The writers posit that democratic nations are hesitant to partake in civil wars as policies do not permit them to view countries with adjacent rule and governing code as antagonistic. Besides, democracies have preventive measures that curb the slightest event of a war. There exist States people who are publicly accountable for resolving international tensions before wars wage. Democratic leaders also fear the aftermath of wars as they are obliged to deal with the huge losses incurred (Kant 138). Kant (138) suggests that only a civil state can establish a state of peace with every citizen pledging security to his neighbor. In the absence of such policies, every citizen would view their neighbor, from whom they claim safety, to be hostile. The philosopher believes that the majority of a country's populace would never vote for war unless in self-preservation. Here is what he wrote:

“…if the consent of the citizens is required to decide that war should be declared…nothing is more natural than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war. Among the latter would be: having to fight, having to pay the costs of war from their resources, having painfully to repair the devastation war leaves behind, and, too ill up the measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would embitter peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account of constant wars in the future” (Kant 138). In the absence of national laws, there would be open hostilities and not the unceasing threat of war that looms currently.

Equally, Wilson believes that the freedom of a majority of a country’s citizens to partake in national decisions results in domestic and international peace in the long run. The philosopher attributes the presupposition to the fact that democracy sources its policies from the constitution chosen by the people. Nonetheless, rational people would never allow their state to declare war. A democratic realm is more peaceful due to the way it is structured as well as the shared culture. Disputes that arise in democracies are settled by peaceful means and this becomes the governing rule that is applied even in associations with neighboring countries. A perfect illustration is the leaders of two democracies entangled in a difference of opinion between waters or airspace choosing to shun violent means. Structurally, democracies are built in a way that does not allow surprise attacks. There is a characteristically slow procedure that deters leaders from moving their countries impulsively towards the battle. This provides sufficient time for diplomats to resolve the conflict peaceably (Wilson 149).

Immanuel Kant differs from Woodrow Wilson by believing in a republican constitution, nature, and human nature as well as leagues of harmony to promote peace. Kant considers republic peace to trace its roots from the pure perception of human rights and is therefore wholesome in its origin. He alludes to the fact that a government should not be hereditary as such governments have rulers that consider their protectorate and office as private property. Therefore, political power can be passed to an heir of their choice despite the people's selection. Rather, the rights of the people and their private property and contracts ought to be respected. The government should also divide power between the judiciary, executive, and legislative. In this way, peace is promoted. However, Kant proposes that even an international alliance of such republics cannot guarantee world peace. The conditions provide a setting for peace to thrive but actual peace is inclined to the free choice of office-bearers governing the republics (Kant 139,140).

Contrariwise, Wilson supports peace without victory of war which calls for settling disputes without the need to take part in a clear battle, cooperation with the people, and national self-determination. Victory would mean that the loser has peace forced upon them in the conqueror's terms and conditions. The conquered would then accept peace in "humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand” (Wilson 148). As such, the author suggests that peace should be inspired by decent principles and not ravenousness and retaliation as that would leave the losers feeling resentful and humiliated (Wilson 148).

Moreover, Wilson (148) reveals that equivalence between individuals is of great vitality for peace to last. This is another factor that differentiates Wilson’s view from that of Kant; the equality lens that Wilson uses to view everyone. According to Wilson the people in power and those being governed have equal rights and the realization of this fact is the sole way of achieving eternal peace. The equality arises from the fact that authority is bestowed upon rulers by the country’s citizens. Therefore, people cannot be passed down form dominion to dominion like they are property. Governing bodies have to hold their voters in high regard. Without the recognition of equality for all and the realization of the idea that the consent of the governed builds power, the prevailing peaceful conditions would be short-lived. Similarly, nations across the globe must use impartiality as grounds for peace. Countries whose borders are filled with resources must not use that as an opportune moment to demand power. No state that has garnered legitimate development should view another state as inferior as that would be against the freedom of mankind (Wilson 149).

On the other hand, Kant’s thought of equality only stands valid under the law which is far much different from reality. He suggests that the head of state is superior and exempts him from the coercive right that binds other citizens. Kant declares that every resident within a country’s borders has the right to summon the authority of the nation to administer the laws on their behalf (Coercive right). However, this is not the case with the head of state as Kant regards him or her superior to coercion by anyone else. All the other residents of the country derive the right to equality with every other member of the community. This statement can also be attributed to the dependence of the people on the state to implement their freedom as well as other rights. Despite taking part in producing the laws that govern them in the constitution, the people rely on governments for the execution of all state affairs that affect them. Therefore, Kant suggests that the governing body in a country is not equal to the people who bestowed them with the power as the governed have to obey the government (Kant 141).

In summary, I approve of both Woodrow Wilson's and Immanuel Kant's belief that peace between individuals, societies, and nations worldwide is necessary. As portrayed by Kant throughout his text, a peaceful atmosphere is the only way to avoid the extermination of mankind. To achieve republican peace, countries need to have a strict adherence to transnational acts and institutions and representative democracy. Therefore, perpetual peace as agreed upon by Kant and Wilson should be the constant object that drives mankind's actions.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual peace. BoD–Books on Demand, 2020. ISBN:978-3-75240-155-4

Wilson, Woodrow. "Community of Power vs. Balance of Power." Conflicts after the Cold War. Arguments on Causes of War and Peace (2008): 132-134. ISBN:978-1-138-29069-3