Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T19:03:23.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hegel's Homage to Kant's Perpetual Peace: An Analysis of Hegel's Philosophy of Right §§ 321–340

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Thomas Mertens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At a few places in his Philosophy of Right Hegel directly addresses the discussion with his famous predecessor Immanuel Kant. These places indicate very clearly the distinction between the two philosophical standpoints. This article focuses on Hegel's criticism of Kant's views on peace and international law. For two reasons however, it starts with Hegel's rejection of Kant's moral point of view. First, this criticism is presupposed in Hegel's rejection of Kant's view on politics. Second, at least a partial return to Kantian morality is implied in Hegel's statement that war, although not to be condemned categorically, must be limited both quantatively and qualitatively.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , Fall 1995 , pp. 665 - 692
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I would like to thank the following individuals for helpful suggestions and support: Shlomo Avineri, Edith Brugmans, Renée Eckhoff, Thomas Pogge, Pauline Westerman and the referees and the editor of The Review of Politics.

1. References to Hegel's Philosophy of Right (Rph) are given in parentheses. The first paragraph or page number refers to: Hegel, G. W. F., Grundlinien der Philosophic des Rechts, in Werke, ed. Molderhauer, E. and Michel, K. M. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1968), Bd. 7.Google Scholar A second page number may refer to the English translations: Knox, : Hegel's Philosophy of Right, trans, with notes Knox, T. M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952)Google Scholar; Elements: Hegel, G. W. F., Elements of the Philosophy of Right, ed. Wood, A., trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Other abbreviations used: Ilt = Hegel, G. W. F., Vorlesungenüber Rechtsphilosophie, 4 Bände, Hrsg. K.H. Ilting (Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 1974).Google Scholar (lIt I = lIt, first volume); Henrich = Hegel, G. W. F., Philosophie des Rechts. Die Vorlesung von 1819/1820 in einer Nachschrift, Hrsg. D. Henrich (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1983)Google Scholar; Anm = Anmerkung, remark to the paragraphs in Rph; Z = Zusatz, addition to the paragraphs in Rph.

2. Kant, I., Kritik der Urteilskraft, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. V, § 83:430Google Scholar; Critique of Judgement, trans. Bernard, J. H. (New York: Hafner Publishers, 1951), pp. 279–80Google Scholar; Kant, I., Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. IV: 418Google Scholar; Critique of Practical Reason and Other Writings in Moral Philosophy, ed. and trans. Beck, L W. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), p. 77.Google Scholar

3. Kant, I., Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. V: 21Google Scholar; Beck, , Critique of Practical Reason, p. 132Google Scholar: Theorem I: “All practical principles which presuppose an object (material) of the faculty of desire as the determining ground of the will are without exception empirical and can furnish no practical laws.”

4. The famous § 7 of Kant's, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. V: 30Google Scholar; Beck, , Critique of Practical Reason, p. 142.Google Scholar

5. Kant, I., Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. IV: 436Google Scholar; Beck, , Critique of Practical Reason, p. 93.Google Scholar

6. To mention some examples: superficiality (Preface, Knox, pp. 5, 7) and shallow science (§ 140, Anm: Knox, p. 100); scholasticism (Preface, Knox, p. 9) and academic futilities (§ 140 Anm: Knox, p. 99); guilty conscience (Preface, Knox, p. 6) and conscience as formal subjectivity on the verge of slipping into evil (§ 139 Anm: Knox, p. 92); self-styled “philosophers” (Preface, Knox: 5) and self-styled philosophy (§ 140 Anm: Knox, p. 98).

7. Smith, S. B., Hegel's Critique of Liberalism; Rights in Context (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 71–75.Google Scholar

8. Selznick, P., “The Idea of a Communitarian Morality,” California Law Review 75 (1987): 447,454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Hegel, G. W. F., Natural Law (Uber die wissenschaftlichen Behandlungsarten des Naturrechts), in Jenaer Schriften, Werke, Bd. 2: 529–30.Google Scholar

10. Kant, I., Uber den Gemeinspruch: das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis; Zum ewigen Frieden, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VIII: 279, 351;Google ScholarKant's Political Writings, ed. with intro. and notes Reiss, H., trans. Nisbet, H. B. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 79,100.Google Scholar

11. Riley, P., “On Kant as the Most Adequate of the Social Contract Theorists,” Political Theory 1 (1973): 450–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Peperzak, A., “Hegel contra Hegel in His Philosophy of Right: The Contradictions of International Politics,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 32 (1994): 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. S. Avineri, , Hegel's Theory of the Modern State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Smith, , Hegel's Critique of Liberalism, p. 158.Google Scholar

15. Hegel, quotes his own Natural Law (Über die wissenschaftlichen Behandlungsarten des Naturrechts), in Jenaer Schriften, Werke, Bd. 2: 482.Google Scholar

16. Avineri, , Hegel's Theory of the Modern State, p. 196.Google Scholar

17. Smith, , Hegel's Critique of Liberalism, p. 162.Google Scholar

18. Hegel rejects the domestic analogy, as the idea that a society among states could be compared with a society among individuals and take the form of a political society, Walzer, M., Just and Unjust Wars. A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 1977, 1992), p. 58Google Scholar. According to Peperzak (“Hegel contra Hegel,” pp. 257–60) this rejection constitutes a logical mistake.

19. These “widespread connections and many-sided interests” contradict, so it seems, the statement that “States are... completely autonomous totalities in themselves” (Rph, § 330 Z).

20. Hegel does not mention that Kant is aware of this too. In his Kritik der Urteilskraft, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. V, § 28: 263Google Scholar, Kant writes: “War itself, if it is carried on with order and with a sacred respect for the rights of citizens, has something sublime in it.... On the other hand, a long peace generally brings about a predominant commercial spirit and, along with it, low selfishness, cowardice, and effeminacy, and debases the disposition of the people” (Bernard, , Critique of Judgement, p. 102).Google Scholar I will not try to answer the question whether these remarks are consistent with Kant's political writings. I just want to add that the Critique of Judgement is dedicated to the so-called reflective judgment, while Kant's political writings form part of his practical philosophy, which results from an analysis of the determinant judgment.

21. Hegel, G. W. F., Phäomenologie des Geistes, Werke, Bd. 3: 335.Google Scholar

22. Hegel, G. W. F., Die Verfassung Deutschlands, in Frühe Schriften, Werke, B 1: 541.Google Scholar

23. Kant, I., Zum ewigen Frieden, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VIII: 351Google Scholar; Kant's Political Writings, p. 100.

24. Kant, I., Zum ewigen Frieden, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VIII: 345Google Scholar; Kant's Political Writings, pp. 94–95.

25. Knox, T. M., translator's notes, p. 374Google Scholar, in Hegel's Philosophy of Right.

26. See Kant's, 6th preliminary article in: Zum ewigen Frieden, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VIII: 346–47Google Scholar; Also: Die Metaphysik der Sitten, Rechtslehre, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VI: 347 (§ 57)Google Scholar; Kant's Political Writings, pp. 96–97,168.

27. Kant, I., Die Metaphysik der Sitten, Rechtslehre, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VI: 354Google Scholar; Kant's Political Writings, p. 174.

28. In his article Hegel's Account of War (in Hegel's Political Philosophy. Problems and Perspectives, ed. Pelczynski, Z. A. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971], pp. 168–80Google Scholar), D. P. Verene rejects this distinction between a descriptive and a prescriptive reading of Hegel's statements of war. Such a distinction would neglect what philosophical statements themselves are for Hegel. However, Verene's account of the function of the “warrior” in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit does not help me to understand the limits of the soldier's military dutyaccording to the Philosophy of Right

29. A valuable interpretation is given by Dagues, D. Souche, “Le Pouvoir Princier,” in: Logique et Politique Hégéliennes (Paris: Vrin, 1983), pp. 73–125.Google Scholar

30. Kant, I., Zum ewigen Frieden, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VIII: 346–47Google Scholar; Kant's Political Writings, pp. 96–97.

31. Kant, I., Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VI: 34n.Google Scholar

32. See Kant's, 2nd definitive article, Zum ewigen Frieden, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VIII: 354Google Scholar; Kant's Political Writings, p. 102.

33. According to Kant the violation of the “ius in bello” is prohibited “irrespective of differing circumstances.” The prohibition of the “dishonorable stratagems” is therefore of the strictest sort, Zum ewigen Frieden, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VIII: 347Google Scholar; Kant's Political Writings, p. 97.

34. Kant, I., Die Metaphysik der Sitten, Rechtslehre, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VI: 349 (§ 60)Google Scholar; Kant's Political Writings, p. 170. See also my: “War and International Order in Kant's Legal Thought,” Ratio Juris 8 (1995).Google Scholar More hesitation is formulated by Geismann, G., “Kants Rechtslehre vom Weltfrieden,” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 37 (1983): 372–73.Google Scholar

35. Kant, I., Die Metaphysik der Sitten, Rechtslehre, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VI: 347 (§ 57)Google Scholar; Kant's Political Writings, p. 168.

36. See Kant's, 3rd preliminary article, Zum ewigen Frieden, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. VIII: 345Google Scholar; Kant's Political Writings, pp. 94–95.

37. Kant, I., Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Akademie Ausgabe Bd. IV: 429Google Scholar; Beck, , Critique of Practical Reason, p. 87.Google Scholar

38. At this point Hegel's text is not very clear. Nevertheless, I think that my interpretation can hold by the combination of: Rph, § 328: “ benevolent attitude towards them as individuals” (“guter Gesinnung gegen sie als Individuen”); § 338 Z: “in the main body of the army hostility is something vague and gives place to each side's respect for the duty of the other” (“in dem Heere als Heer ist die Feindschaft etwas Unbestimmtes, das gegen die Pflicht, die jeder an dem anderen achtet, zurucktritt”), and lIt IV, 743, which adds to this: “in this way a relation of mutual respect arises, which protects against ill treatment” (“so tritt ein Verhaltnis gegenseitiger Achtung ein, welches den Schutz gegen Mishandlungen giebt”).

39. Peperzak, , “Hegel contra Hegel,” p. 251Google Scholar; See also Peperzak's, excellent article: “Hegels Pflichten und Tugendlehre,” Hegel-Studien 17 (1982): 97–117.Google Scholar

40. Hegel, G. W. F., Natural Law (Über die wissenschaftlichen Behandlungsarten des Naturrechts), in Jenaer Schriften, Werke, Bd. 2: 529–30.Google Scholar

41. See: Maclntyre, A., Is Patriotism a Virtue? (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, 1984).Google Scholar

42. This view has a long history, starting probably with Aristotle's Politics (1253 a 1–7).