Was Kant a naive pacifist? (philosophical considerations and the background of the russian-ukrainian war)

Abstract

The article is devoted to I. Kant's views on the problem of war and peace and the possibility of achieving "perpetual peace" on the basis of the pamphlet "To Eternal Peace" and some other late works of the thinker. In particular, attention is paid to the historical background of the appearance of the work as a certain completion of moral philosophy and philosophy of law in the context of developing one's own project of "eternal peace" taking into account the solution of specific problems of foreign policy at the end of the 18th century. The article examines a kind of Kantian "formula of peace", which claims universal significance. It is laid out in the preliminary and especially in the definitive articles of the imaginary contract. It is argued that it is based on three main principles: republicanism, federalism and the presence of a cosmopolitan citizenship limited to hospitality. These principles are complemented by the so-called "guarantees" of "perpetual peace": the progress of law and the spirit of international trade. The article analyzes apologetic and critical responses to Kant's work and its subsequent interpretations in European philosophy and political thought. In particular, special attention is paid to the interpretation of his work as a "pacifist manifesto". Based on this, it was argued that Kant was one of the founders of secular pacifism. The article reasonably refutes such a position on the basis of its anachronism and inconsistency with the views of Kant himself, who considered "eternal peace" only as a higher normative ideal of foreign policy. The influence of Kantian ideas on the formation of modern philosophy of international relations, in particular the theory of democratic peace (DPT), is indicated. It is indicated that the three main principles of Kant's formula of "eternal peace" found their embodiment in the postulates of this theory. At the same time, it is noted that the practice of implementing DPT in US foreign policy has not always had positive consequences. In this regard, the problem of its application to the analysis of the causes and course of the Russian-Ukrainian war is analyzed. There are different positions on this matter, but based on the latest publications and the real course of events. It is concluded that the "militant" version of DPT can be useful for achieving our victory and a just, fair and worthy peace.