The Kantian view of perpetual peace:
The other modern plans for a perpetual peace descend from Immanuel Kant's 1795 essay, "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" (Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf.). In this essay, the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant described his proposed peace program. Perpetual peace is arguably seen as the starting point of contemporary liberal thought. Perpetual Peace is structured in two parts. The "Preliminary Articles" described the steps that should be taken immediately, or with all deliberate speed:
"No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war"
"No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation"
"Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished"
"National debts shall not be contracted with a view to the external friction of states"
"No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state"
"No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason (perduellio) in the opposing state".
Three Definitive Articles would provide not merely a cessation of hostilities, but a foundation on which to build a peace.
"The civil constitution of every state should be republican"
"The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states"
"The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality"
Kant's essay in some ways resembles, yet differs significantly from modern democratic peace theory. He speaks of republican, Republikanisch, (not democratic), states, which he defines to have representative governments, in which the legislature is separated from the executive. He does not discuss universal suffrage, which is vital to modern democracy and quite important to some modern theorists; his commentators dispute whether it is implied by his language. Most importantly, he does not regard republican governments as sufficient by themselves to produce peace: freedom of emigration (hospitality) and a league of nations are necessary to consciously enact his six-point program.
Unlike some modern theorists, Kant claims not that republics will be at peace only with each other, but are more pacific than other forms of government in general.
The general idea that popular and responsible governments would be more inclined to promote peace and commerce became one current in the stream of European thought and political practice. It was one element of the American policy of George Canning and the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston. It was also represented in the liberal internationalism of Woodrow Wilson, George Creel, and H.G. Wells, although other planks in Kant's platform had even more influence. In the next generation, Kant's program was represented by the Four Freedoms and the United Nations.
Kant's essay is a three-legged stool (besides the preliminary disarmament). Various projects for perpetual peace have relied on one leg - either claiming that it is sufficient to produce peace, or that it will create the other two.
This theory has been well developed in recent years. Mansfield and Pollins, writing in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, summarize a large body of empirical work which, for the most part, supports the thesis. There are various exceptions and qualifications which seem to limit the circumstances under which economic interdependence results in conflict reduction. On the other hand, moving beyond economic interdependence to the issue ofeconomic freedom within states, Erik Gartzke has found empirical evidence that economic freedom is about fifty times more effective than democracy in reducing violent conflict.
The third leg is the old idea that a confederation of peaceable princes could produce a perpetual peace. Kant had distinguished his league from a universal state; Clarence Streit proposed, in Union Now(1938), a union of the democratic states modelled after the Constitution of the United States. He argued that trade and the peaceable ways of democracy would keep this Union perpetual, and counted on the combined power of the Union to deter the Axis from war.
Deism:
Enlightened Emptiness:
Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature -- a noninterventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws. Like a “clockmaker god” initiating the cosmic process, the universe moves forward, without needing God’s supervision. Deism believes that precise and unvarying laws define the universe as self-operating and self-explanatory. These laws reveal themselves through “the light of reason and nature.” Reliance on the power of reasoning exchanges faith for human logic. Here are some examples of deist reasoning:
God is identified through nature and reason, not revelation. Deists who believe in God, or at least a divine principle, follow few if any of the other tenets and practices of Christianity, Judaism, or any religion believing in a personal God. Any deist god is an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will. Some deists believe in Jesus Christ, while others do not. Most deists give regard to the moral teachings of Jesus. The Bible is not accepted as the infallible Word of God.
Deists refute evidence of Jesus’ incarnation of God on earth. They deny the credibility of any writings from the Apostles or any “Spirit-inspired” writings. Deism has no creed, articles of faith, or holy book. Neither Satan nor hell exists, only symbols of evil which can be overcome by man’s own reasoning. Man is qualified to decide what reasonable path to follow regarding morals. Deists refer to themselves as “freethinkers.” Deists reject revelations and visions. There is no place for the nonsense of miracles and prophecies in an enlightened deist’s life. Deism has no need for ministers, priests, or rabbis. All an individual requires is their own common sense and the ability to contemplate their human condition.
Deism – A Stepping Stone to Atheism:
Since the latter part of the 18th century, deism used science to justify its stance. Scientists, like Sir Isaac Newton, were able to elaborate more and more to explain how the universe and everything around us worked. Many of the mysteries that man attributed to God, yielded simple mechanistic explanations. The increase in knowledge spurred the decline in religious faith among the intellectual elite. As a philosopher and mathematician, Descartes reduced God to a “mathematical abstraction.” Reason pushed faith off into the realm of mythology and superstition, while deism quickly deteriorated into atheism (belief in no God at all). Science seemed to engage in a centuries-old battle with religion for the mind of man. Life became a product of blind change -- a cosmic game of chance played throughout time.
Deism – Something Missing:
Humanity continues to spend billions of dollars on ventures such as the Hubble Space Telescope. Man is still passionately pursuing his origins, attempting to understand God’s design in creation. Dr. Patrick Glynn, Harvard University graduate and associate director at George Washington University, concludes that, “Physicists are discovering an unexplainable order to the cosmos . . . psychologists, who once considered belief in God to be a sign of neurosis, are finding that religious faith is a powerful elixir for mental health.” Like love, spirituality can’t be intellectually or mathematically proven, but our emotions tell us there is a dimension to life that transcends the logical, physical realm. What is it that missing ingredient?
