Obama Administration Philosophy

It’s an example of international law cheap essay writing! You can order your own assignment here. We can write cheap original paper fast!

Just war theory and international law have long acknowledged the use of pressure in self-defense by the U.S. facing actual or imminent attack. But outside this there has never been a consensus on the ethics of military meddling. A cautious re-examination of the normative arguments on the international pressure put forward by the most distinguished European philosopher – I. Kant could help to consider the ethical implications of present-day military meddling in a refreshing new light.
The present Libya War reached the status of an “imminent war” in February, 2011, yet there were still relations of whether or not the war was the absolute best answer to “insufficient” inspections. The disorder with the quarrel was that there subsisted many levels to its escalation, as extended conflict often has. According to the U.S. Administration, the state had a duty to take control of a tyrannical leader who was not in pliability with United Nations resolutions, while others argued against the notion of stopping a tyrant in disaccord with international regulations without the support of the current UN Security Council. Who is right? What was the proper course of action?
I look to Kant, to Kantian ethics, for answers to this dispute. Kant has established a framework for the creation of a “realistic utopia” and a wish to collectively evolve to a society of peoples that will one day destroy the, so-called, need for war. Kantian ethics would support the involvement of the U.S. in the protracted social conflict of Libya. This support is founded in Kant’ expressed trust that there is a duty of liberal commonwealths to societies approaching the status of being encumbered by societal woes. With the help of Kantian ethics, perhaps there is a stronger proof in support of conflict with Libya if an individual focuses on just one of Obama’s many angles on sanctioning war. The question here is, in short: how utmost does a threat of weapons of mass devastation have to be before war is justifiable? Such questions are never directly responded, especially not by Kant – who was not readied to envision a world of nuclear warfare.
It is hard to say whether or not Kant would be in support of Libyan conflict. It seems as though any part of philosophy can be understood few ways, and “Toward Perpetual Peace” is no exception. Certain aspects of Kant’ ideals, I think would support war, but others trust that war is wrong. Kant says, “If a violent revolution, engendered by a bad constitution, introduces by illegal means a more legal constitution, to lead the people back to the earlier constitution would not be permitted; but, while the revolution lasted, each person who openly or covertly shared in it would have justly incurred the punishment due to those who rebel.” (Kant, 1996). But he also states that “In accordance with reason there is only one way that states in relation to one another can leave the lawless condition, which involves nothing but war; it is that, like individual human beings, they give up their savage (lawless) freedom, accommodate themselves to public coercive laws, and so form an (always growing) state of nations (civitas gentium) that would finally encompass all the nations of earth.” (Kant, 1996). Kant does few significant aspects about peace, and what creates a “realistic utopia” possible, “So perpetual peace, the ultimate goal of the whole right of nations, is indeed an unachievable idea. Still, the political principles directed toward perpetual peace, of entering into such alliances of states, which serve for continual approximation to it, are not unachievable.” (Kant, 1996). On the other hand, Kant attended these liberal doctrines with a refusal of any right to violent revolution, which has seemed startling to many people, but Kant’s reason here is total. Underlying his position as a whole is his opinion that in any situation in which various individuals are bound to come into communication with each other we have not solely a moral right but a moral obligation to found or uphold a state. But one could easily persuade that a tyranny is a state in name only, and that our moral responsibility with regard to a tyrants like Gaddafi is precisely to restore it at any cost with a legitimate state.
Kant proposes several reasons why this is not so. One claim is that violent revolution does not leave time for real reform in principles, and another reason is that people revolt for the sake of greater contentment, which is an illegitimate argument for the overthrow of a state. But these are empirical demands, and do not demonstrate that people cannot revolt solely to undo illegitimate constraints to their freedom. Another reason Kant does is that a constitution confirming a legal right to rebel opposed to the highest authority it creates would by that means not create a sole highest authority after all, and would thereby self-contradictory. This has seemed to many to be a sophistry; but it can have been Kant’s effort to get his liberalism past the Prussian censorship, refusing a legal right to rebel without ever explicitly refusing a moral right to rebel. The reasons raised by I. Kant in assist of war range from those established in national self-interest to stronger rights such as controversy that there is a serious threat to liberal nation. The society has the claim to defend itself against threats posed by an outlaw state.
Kant indeed trusted that war may be legitimately embarked on only as a defensive measure, and that pre-emptive aggression is not defence. However, circumstances have changed, and I may show some Kantian arguments for the view that the civilized world, faced with the dangers that now oppose it, should take pre-emptive measures when dealing with aberrant states like Gaddafi’s Libya. There are several Kant’s ethical terms:
The Just War – Universalisability
The Just War term took from Natural Law reasoning, but may in addition be accomplished using the cause of Universalisability. A rational person would accede that wars should not be fought without a just principle, and may be declared by the appropriate authority. It makes wisdom to say that innocent people should not be targeted, as I would not desire to be targeted myself. However, all of the Just War Criteria might be assisted by a Kantian ethics. Kant used this categorical imperative when disputing the maxims, or subjective rules, that rule our actions. A maxim is universalisable if it may consistently be willed as a law that every human should to comply. The test of universalisability assures that everyone has the same moral responsibilities in morally same situations.
Ends in themselves
Kant argues that people should never treat individuals as a means to some end: “Treat humans as ends in themselves.” (Kant, 1996). People should always be treated as ends in themselves, encouraging equality. Kant would quarrel with mercenaries – people who fight for any country that pays. Such people are solely being used (or using themselves) as a means to an end. Anyway, a rebel or a soldier fighting for his own country can be treated as an end in himself if he profits from the freedoms fought for, is well paid and looked after. In the case of young rebels, proper care would mean education rather than front-line fighting, so Kant withstands child soldiers.
Contradiction of the will
Such contradiction is named special pleading. When rational beings will to do unpleasant things, they want a contradiction: they want everybody else to do the fine thing, because that is exactly what makes their wrongdoing possible. For example, the liar wants everyone else to say the truth; if everyone lied, no one would trust the liar’s lie. So the liar in impact is willing a contradiction, “Every rational being should say the truth, except me.” It is special pleading: requiring the guide to request to everyone and not to me. This contradiction is a default of universalizability. According to the war terms – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was in 1948, so before then there were no human rights. It is logically probable to imagine a world where people are arrested without charge and tormented. Nevertheless, everyone rational agent understanding themselves being arrested without charge would be oppose to having such a rule – it is a contradiction of the will, because we would not agree to be treated that way.
Freedom
Kant relates freedom with morality, he notices: “We assume that we are free so that we may think of ourselves as subject to moral laws.” (Kant, 1996). To be free is to follow our own rational rules instead of just our wishes – to follow our own law – to act on maxims that we will to be universal legislations. Hence, to be free is to be moral. So freedom and morality are extremely the same riddle. If there is such a thing as morality, we can have free will. Kant says: “Ought implies can”, (Kant, 1996) that is why it would be incorrect to tell I should to do something if I cannot to prefer. Kant is opposed to forced draft, as people are not freely choosing to become rebels.
Good will
Kant tries to detect the principles behind general sense morality. He remarks that only a good will is good without qualification (always good). A good will is good in itself, not just for what it generates. A will is good if it actions from duty (and other moral motives), and not merely in conformity with duty. We might think that Kant would be a pacifist, as it makes perfect feeling if everyone behaves that way. However, we need to ask how Kant would have answered to Gaddafi’s crimes. One option is to permit such tyrants to do what they choose – that does not work well as a universal law. The good will does its obligation, following the rational path.

Law of Nature
Kant fixes the categorical imperative as ensues: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”. The Categorical Imperative – Law of Nature Kant also fixes the categorical imperative as ensues: “As if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.” (Kant, 1996). It is hard to see how these two statements are various, and many texts treat them as though they say the same thing. All ethical theories blame genocide, but in practice no-one stopped the Libyan genocide, and thousands have already died in Libyan towns. Would we need a law of nature where people permitted genocide or stroke it? Kant’s theory would demand that the United Nations (it is Kant’s idea – a League of Nations) should act to obviate genocide.
However, Kant does realize the confusion that may occur when trying to make a case for war, and mentions this probability when he says: “The state of peace among men living in close proximity is not the natural state (status naturalis); instead, the natural stats is a one of war…the state of peace must therefore be established, for the suspension of hostilities does not provide the security of peace…” (Rawls, 1999). As members of a global system, we have a long ways to go in order to get to the point where we can eliminate hostility and only use peaceful means of conflict resolution. But right now, we have not learned how to effectively use methods of peacekeeping and enforcement other than war. We need to seriously consider where we want things to go in terms of creating a global community and what steps will gets us, citizens of the world, to that goal. Beyond any discussions in opposition to military help by the U.S., the violations of human rights and lack of social freedoms make a meaning of urgency with regards to intervention.

​References
Kant, I. (1996). Toward Perpetual Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (1996). Doctrine of Right. Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

It’s an example of international law cheap essay writing! You can order your own assignment here. We can write cheap original paper fast!