Kantian Peace

According to Kant, perpetual peace is the highest political good. He introduces this idea not in his famous essay "Toward Perpetual Peace", but in the "Metaphysics of Morals", more exactly in the Doctrine of Right, in the Conclusion to Chapter III, Cosmopolitan Right. As the highest political good, this ideal presupposes several requirements, some of them quite demanding, yet, Kant maintains, not impossible. For instance, perpetual peace presupposes rightful order at the national, international and cosmopolitan levels. At the national level, Kant claims, a rightful order presupposes a republican constitution. At the international level, a set of laws are needed to regulate interactions between states. Finally, as citizens of the earth, rather than as members of particular states, persons have rights protected by cosmopolitan law. Such a complex rightful condition, Kant claims, should emerge through gradual reform and would involve changes in all areas of life, particularly in politics and education, but also socially, for instance, in the sphere of religious belief. Although in places Kant suggests that this process can be brought about more speedily by the concerted actions of citizens and states, he also suggests that there is a guarantee that it will inevitably happen. All these claims raise further questions, for instance, on how we are to interpret his view of a republican constitution, what the status he attributes to the guarantee for perpetual peace is, what kind of education he envisages as appropriate for a rightful condition and which kind of religious beliefs and communities he thinks as compatible with a peaceful coexistence. The interest in these various aspects related to Kant’s idea of perpetual peace is not purely scholarly. Through Rawls’s and Habermas’s works, Kant’s influence on contemporary political philosophy is immense and Kant’s view of political teleology and his conception of perpetual peace as the “entire final end of the doctrine of right within the limits of mere reason” are very relevant today. Consider, for instance, the recent surge of interest in the Republican tradition, through the work of Philip Pettit and Quentin Skinner among others: Kant’s role in the development of this tradition is much less well appreciated, until recently his work having been mainly read as belonging to the Liberal tradition. One aim of the section is to explore recent republican readings of Kant’s legal and political philosophy, paying special attention to the following sorts of questions: How do republican readings diverge from more traditionally liberal interpretations of Kant, and with what results? Is Kant’s account of basic rights comprehensively republican in character, or does it present a mixed picture? What does a republican interpretation of Kant entail for the traditionally understood division between morality and law? What are the consequences of this re-interpretation for international law and theories of perpetual peace? Relatedly, another aim of the Section is to evaluate Kant’s views of religion and education, as well as of the relation between religion and the public sphere, and to investigate the extent to which these views bear on issues concerning religious conflicts. In their book "Secularism and Freedom of Conscience", Charles Taylor and Jocelyn Maclure distinguish two forms of a secular regime: liberal pluralist and republican. Taking into account this distinction and its relevance to recent problems with relations between state and religions, the section will consider how Kant's conception of religion, formulated in "Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason", "The Conflict of Faculties" and other writings containing remarks on faith (for instance, his correspondence), bear on contemporary ways of dealing with religious conflicts (or simply on tensions between groups sharing divergent beliefs regarding the meaning and purpose of human life) and enabling peaceful coexistence of citizens of different faiths in one political community. Finally, John Rawls’s "The Law of Peoples" has recently been the subject of more considered and constructive discussion following the rather dismissive initial critique by cosmopolitan liberals. It has featured increasingly prominently in discussions on human rights, international law, just war and international redistribution. One legacy of the initial criticisms, however, seems to have been a reluctance to view the text in light of the explicit connections with Kant's "Toward Perpetual Peace", despite Rawls’s implying that he is presenting a contemporary version of the work. Some of the question on which the section will focus may include the difference in their views on just war, whether Rawls rather than the cosmopolitans is the true heir to Kantian international relations, how Rawls' Society of Peoples and the concept of decent peoples fit with Kant's republican ideal, whether Perpetual Peace may be read 'back' through the Law of Peoples in revealing ways, in regard to issues such as intervention or redistribution, and perhaps most importantly, the extent to which the Law of Peoples may be understood as a contemporary interpretation of Perpetual Peace. Proposed Panels and convenors: “Political Education and Peace”: Dorota Pietrzyk-Reeves “Towards Perpetual Peace in Rawls’s Law of Peoples?”: Huw Williams “Kantian Peace in the Republican Tradition”: Sasha Mudd “Kant’s Republicanism and the Highest Political Good”: Howard Williams and Jakub Szczepanski “Guarantee for Perpetual Peace”: Sorin Baiasu “Kant on Religious Conflicts in a Secularised World”: Anna Tomaszewska References: Kant, I. ([1793]1996) “Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason”, in Religion and Rational Theology. Trs and eds Allen W. Wood and George Di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kant, I. ([1795]1996) “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy. Tr. and ed. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kant, I. ([1797]1996) “The Metaphysics of Morals”, in Practical Philosophy. Tr. And ed. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kant, I. ([1798]1996) “The Conflict of the Faculties”, in Religion and Rational Theology. Trs and eds Allen W. Wood and George Di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maclure, J. and Taylor, C. (2011) Secularism and Freedom of Conscience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.