1. What assumptions does Kant share with realists weve read?

(assumptions about the human

nature)
a. People arent born with in an innate moral sense, developed through interactions and
socialization
b. People use reason to make decisions
c. KEY think: we arent inherently good and due to this competition is inevitable (vs. the
realists take it a different route)
2. Given his similar assumptions about human nature, how does he arrive at dramatically different
conclusions about the prospects of peace?
- Kant: reaching moral maturity; get there through trial and error and experience; it is in our
interest to reach this point. (we are not born from this point).
- Individual liberty: ??..im not sure about this
- How does he arrive at different conclusions: balance of power?
a. What roles does unsocial sociability, reason, and nature play in the course of human
history?
i. Unsocial sociability: inherent tensions between community and one looking out
for individual sense
ii. Reason: reason is the step that helps us reach out full potential
iii. Nature: the driving force that is inevitable, nature is guiding us to the ultimate
nature
Inherent tension between unsocial sociability: why are we not evolving
towards good? Proposition four:
This is what gives rise to what is great about human beings: everything
great we have crated is due to this and what separates us from other
species is reason
Great cosmic power and wants us to develop to the capacity ro the
fullest (like an obstacle course that we have to navigate) to get moral
maturity and develop our capacity to the fullest (in the grand scheme of
human history)
How does he move from
b. Why does Kant think that states will inevitably form a great confederation? How will this
process resemble the process carried out within states?
i. Tensions between citizens and states results in states, between states leads to
confederation (because it benefits outweighs the reality of staying isolated).:
war comes with a lot of debt for states; thus inefficient to fight wars, also it
costs youths thus war is bad for this process. Thus through self interest and laws
and institutions, we can come to a better state?
ii. pg 53: he thinks this a more hopeful telling of the human history; he thinks it is
sad to hold on the realists thought that peace is not possible and only perhaps
through power can you get peace, Kant doesnt believe this is necessarily true.
But we look at Athens, etc. we see some progress going on. Though he might
not be defining an empirical reality, he is telling us these as a prophecyso if
people all start to believe this, indeed we might have a more peaceful society.
iii. Confedrations: like UN, EU, NAFTA? To what degree is the interdependence?
iv. Kant more peacr from moreal emlightmentment; realist: more peace form
balance of power (if believe humans are more competeitve and greedy)
c. If you disagree with his conclusions about the prospects for peace, at what stage of his
reasoning do you think he goes wrong? Why?
d. If you agree with his conclusions, do you think that he identifies the correct mechanisms
by which we might be making our way towards peace?
Identify key assumptions (to make sense of argument) by KANT:
- Teleology: there is some plan, but not only for your individual life, but for nature as whole
and even if dont know, and our acts seem random, but in the grand picture, there is key
cosmic plan that is being carried out. THE MECHANISM!
- Progress/Evolution: in the grand scheme of human history (at least in the sense of
government) see a progressions towards more civilized government




















Good for itself and goof without qualification.

I. Consider the following quote from on the Theory of Relationship of Theory to International Rights

For the idea that
Duty he is referring to is duty of perpetual peace and pursuing this cosmopolitan society. If there is a
glim of hope to pursue that goal then you should pursue it. Tradeoff between the potential pitfalls
versus rewards to adhering to this grand thing. (are the rewards so great the you think its worth
purusing even if it sint right now; doesnt describe well right now, but the potential benefits outweight
the costs). Goal; we have a duty to work towards.


II.


Frankena: ethics 1-3,6
Thucydides
Weber
Thucydides /weber: key actor staes
Kant: key actor is not state: why he makes key argimnet of consequentionalsm..our deciosn are not
sufficiently enlightened.
Litmus test: instead of trying to figure out on your own (weber: the statemen doing what is bets on
behald of state) he says polis dont have interests aligned with that of state; so use a litmus test to see if
you are doing for th public good or not, if you can make the action public or not. Are you able to
announce it publicly, and if you are will it undermine your policy/defeat your interest or not, if you are
able to do it, and..you dont have to go through with it, but are you comfortable if you had to do it?

Btu can this be gotten around with spin and how much information you release? (i.e. nationa interest).