Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay — John Shaqi
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical EssayKant, Immanuel
PhilosophyPhilosophy
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay
Kant, Immanuel
Peace
Aristotle strongly condemns the Lacedæmonians and Cretans for
regarding war and conquest as the sole ends to which all law and
education should be directed. Also in non-Greek tribes like the
Scythians, Persians, Thracians and Celts he says, only military
power is admired by the people and encouraged by the state.
“There was formerly too a law in Macedonia that any one who had
never slain an enemy should wear the halter about his neck.”
Among the Iberians too, a military people, “it is the custom to
set around the tomb of a deceased warrior a number of obelisks
corresponding to the number of enemies he has killed.... Yet
... it may well appear to be a startling paradox that it should
be the function of a Statesman to succeed in devising the means
of rule and mastery over neighbouring peoples whether with or
against their own will. How can such action be worthy of a
statesman or legislator, when it has not even the sanction of
law?” (_op. cit._, IV. Ch. 2.)
We see that Aristotle disapproves of a glorification of war for
its own sake, and regards it as justifiable only in certain
circumstances. Methods of warfare adopted and proved in the East
would not have been possible in Greece. An act of treachery,
for example, such as that of Jael, (_Judges_ IV. 17) which was
extolled in songs of praise by the Jews, (_loc. cit._ V. 24) the
Greek people would have been inclined to repudiate. The stories
of Roman history, the behaviour of Fabricius, for instance,
or Regulus and the honourable conduct of prisoners on various
occasions released on parole, show that this consciousness of
certain principles of honour in warfare was still more highly
developed in Rome.
Socrates in the _Republic_ (V. 469, 470) gives expression to a
feeling which was gradually gaining ground in Greece, that war
between Hellenic tribes was much more serious than war between
Greeks and barbarians. In such civil warfare, he considered,
the defeated ought not to be reduced to slavery, nor the slain
despoiled, nor Hellenic territory devastated. For any difference
between Greek and Greek is to “be regarded by them as discord
only—a quarrel among friends, which is not to be called war”....
“Our citizens [_i.e._ in the ideal republic] should thus deal
with their Hellenic enemies; and with barbarians as the Hellenes
now deal with one another.” (V. 471.)
The views of Plato and Aristotle on this and other questions were
in advance of the custom and practice of their time.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account