tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post1104011887824552040..comments2022-03-24T15:14:12.561+00:00Comments on Inter Kant: Division of the Preliminary ArticlesGary Banhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-19532066828410263082009-09-16T15:02:16.568+01:002009-09-16T15:02:16.568+01:00Thanks very much for this: you make a much better ...Thanks very much for this: you make a much better case for the division that is manifest in the text of *Perpetual Peace* and it makes me wonder why Kant didn't do a better job (or make the considerations in question more explicit). I like the general argument concerning publicity here though would point again to his peculiar remark about "public opinion" which, unless construed in a specifically normative way, doesn't do the work Kant seems to want it to.<br />5, has, I think, some real specific problems that I want to return to in a future posting. There are a lot of questions about it. But thanks very much for this comment: I'll ponder it further!Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-52769761108812659442009-09-15T19:53:04.416+01:002009-09-15T19:53:04.416+01:00Gary- let me suggest a possible distinction based ...Gary- let me suggest a possible distinction based on publicity, and also peace.<br /><br />Consider especially 1 and 2. For 1: Presumably, secret reservations to treaties were made in the past. Similarly, acquisitions of states through marriage, exchange, etc. were made in the past. <br />So why do Kant say 1 must be implemented immediately, but is more subtle about 2? <br />1 involves secret mental reservations: no one can know what these are. They can always be revived. Peace is impossible if they are forever revived. <br />2 involves acquisitions that were public. People know what these were. They were made in accordance with the rules of the time. Leaving in place the results of those acquisitions does not necessarily make peace impossible in the future (in fact, trying to undo it, at least immediately, may make it impossible). <br /><br />3 involves standing armies - they are by nature public.<br /><br />4 involves public debt. Again, public. By saying we allow them to continue, everyone knows what we're allowing to continue (for now). Progress can be publically checked.<br /><br />6 makes peace impossible in the sense, perhaps, that the strategems are secret. There's more to say, and I'm not sure how 5 would fit in. <br /><br />It seems in general that once you go down the road of 2, 3, and 4, it doesn't help peace and may harm it to stop things immediately. You are in the ditch and have got to get out. <br /><br />However, for 1, 6, and I guess 5, the matter is different. Added to what I said above, any public acceptance of the immediate possibility pf 1, 5, or 6 would make everyone insecure. However, with 2, 3, and 4, states/leaders may make different judgments about when they should stop such tactics, or dismantle them. They make subjective judgments about when to delay implementation. <br /><br />However, if 1, 5, and 6, allowed such subjective judgments about when to delay implementation, peace would forever be impossible; if you can bring up mental reservations at any time, I can't count on you to keep the public version of the treaty. If you can interfere with constitutions of other states at any time, you don't respect the state as an instrument of law (doesn't quite fit). <br /><br />Perhaps the difference is that with 2, 3, and 4, other states can make judgments about your progress.Tim Waligorenoreply@blogger.com