A Kantian Perspective On The International System

Liberals believe the causes of war are miscommunication, mistrust, and misperceptions. As a solution, Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, believed that to overcome international anarchy and achieve perpetual peace, there needed to be collective action (interdependency between states), and a federation of states in which state sovereignty will be left intact (international organizations). However, for this to occur, states must have a democratic government. This later became known as the Kantian Triangle.

In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Emmanuel Kant, we are presented with this conception of Kant’s called “the Form of Law.” With the discussion of the Form of Law, we will also come to encounter both moral law and the categorical imperative. Kant’s notion of the Form of Law, we will later see has a great deal of significance within the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Within the discussion of the Form of Law’s significance in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant also provides us with a response to a claim offered by David Hume. Also, provided in this paper will be both a discussion of correctness of action and the normative requirement. In this paper, I will present Kant’s conception of the Form of Law, as well as its significance in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and finally I will conclude the paper by evaluating this analysis of the structure of correctness in action and the normatively required.

Kant's Categorical Imperative determines the right action to be the one that is capable of becoming a universal law. In this regard, Kant argues that when decisions are made on the basis of human rights and duties, they fit the definition of being ethical because if everyone follows the same action, the world becomes a better place. To apply this test, one should answer the question of "what kind of a world would it be if everyone behaved this way?"

Introduction: In the following essay I will be presenting premises based on Immanuel Kant’s perspective on the matter of, “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”. Once I have outlined Kant’s view on the matter, I will then object to the conclusions, that “Always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means” (Kant pg.169), making his whole argument false.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

Kant's conceived confederation of states, however, is non-binding and subject to constant renewal, exposing it to the Realist counterargument for Morality of States theorists' convictions that states are able to punish aggressors. Arguably, the greatest divergence between Realists and Kantian Cosmopolitans is the latter's belief that states "must act in accordance with the idea of perpetual peace" regardless of its possibility. To this, Realists likely argue their position's sole concern

As an individual, it becomes the duty of one to display good morals and to act according to the society's expectations. Kant continues on with his theories by expressing his reasons behind what is good and bad behavior shown from individuals. Individuals have the decision to make choices in order to maintain the moral principals. Furthermore, to have a better understanding of Immanuel Kant it is important to introduce contexts from the chapter about his theories and reasoning's behind what he believed

The ideals of the Enlightenment are the basis of our democracies and universities in the 21st century: belief in reason, science, skepticism, secularism, and equality. In fact, no other era compares with the Age of Enlightenment. Classical Antiquity is inspiring, but a world away from our modern societies. The Middle Ages was more reasonable than its reputation, but still medieval. The Renaissance was glorious, but largely because of its result: the Enlightenment. The Romantic era was a reaction to the Age of Reason – but the ideals of today’s modern states are seldom expressed in terms of romanticism and emotion. Immanuel Kant’s argument in the essay ‘Perpetual Peace’ (1795) that ‘the human race’ should work for ‘a cosmopolitan constitution’ can be seen as a precursor for the United Nations.

Among many of the scholars who have attempted to defend Kant’s political philosophy as part of the social contract tradition, there has been a general tendency to attenuate Kant to overcome many of the objections considered above. In Jeffrie Murphy’s investigation, he argues that Kant’s theory does not attempt to answer the question of why we have a moral obligation to obey the law, but instead to answer the question of when a law is just (Murphy, 1978). Like so many other scholars writing on Kant, Murphy gets stuck upon a passage in Theory and Practice where Kant states that the social contract never had to be an historical event upon which consent was given by the governed to the state because the social contract theory is only “a mere idea of

Kant’s view emphasizes the importance of rationality, consistency, impartiality, and respect for persons in the way we live our

People have an intrinsic worth above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there’s a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and must be uniformly abided by. This allows humanity to function as an amicable society; an amicable society that is achieved by treating ourselves and others with respect and dignity. Immanuel Kant’s theory known as the categorical imperative expressed an absolute belief in universal moral laws which enables humanity to be treated well. (Rachels EMP 129 & 139)

All of the above, Kant was the philosopher of human autonomy. He was of the view that human beings can determine and manage to live up to the basic principles of knowledge and action without assistance of anyone else, even without any divine support or intervention (Guyer). In this paper we will discuss the extent to which Kant's view of human nature provides a sustainable ground work for his views on the relationship between nations. In order to determine this, different opinions of Kant will be discussed regarding what his views about the human nature and how he compared it with the nations or states.

Kant thinks that the basic moral principles of our society come from people’s rationality, and people must follow these principles unconditionally. These moral principles are the Categorical Imperative. Meanwhile, its common rules have different directions in society. To conclude these directions, it can be reflected from three different formulations. Among the three formulations, the first formulation of universal law has standout features in the maxim and the constraints about people’s behaviors. With combined analysis of examples, the drawbacks of universal law also appear out.

Kant did not simply certify that persons are qualified for respect; he gave an involved conflict for that conclusion. Persons ought to be respected in light of the way that persons have pride. Laborers have a respectability that machines and capital don't have (Beauchamp, Bowie, N. E., and Arnold, D. G, 2004). In this light, multi-national organizations ought to protect the prosperity of every one of its specialists everywhere throughout the world and guarantee that the work and wage directions are being taken after. Completing social activity to ensure the prosperity of some person whose rights are being damaged is similarly right and in this way ought not be seen as method for upsetting the

1. What is the Kantian idea of Europe? What relationship is there between the Dutch and Kantian ideas? Why was peace so crucial at this point in history? What does this have to do with the idea of Europe? On what basis could peace be founded? Does Tully agree with Kant’s claims that his idea of Europe is “universal” and “culturally impartial”? Why or why not? What are Kant’s blind spots? Kant’s idea of “progress” is grounded in a “stages” or a “teleological” view of history. What is a teleological view of history? What are some problems with this view? What kinds of assumptions about other cultures does it lead to? How are colonialism and imperialism related to this kind of thinking? How did Herder 's view of history and of the nation challenge Kant’s? What is the relationship between culture and identity according Herder? According to Kant? What is Tully’s solution to Kant’s limitations?