Perpetual Peace | Supplement 2

Perpetual Peace | Supplement 2

Secret Article relating to Perpetual Peace.

A secret Article in transactions relating to Public Right when viewed objectively or as to its matter, is a contradiction.

Viewed subjectively, however, and considered in reference to the quality of the Person who dictates it, it is possible that there may be a secret contained in it which it may not be compatible with his dignity to have publicly announced as originating with him.

The only Article of this kind is contained in the following proposition:

It appears, however, to detract from the dignity of the legislative authority of a State—to which we must naturally attribute the highest wisdom

—to have to seek for instruction regarding the principles of their practical relations to other States from subjects, even though they be philosophers.

Hence the State will rather encourage them silently, making a secret of the matter, than deal with them directly.

This amounts to saying that it will allow them to speak forth freely and publicly their universal maxims regarding the carrying on of war and the establishment of peace; for this they will do of themselves if they are not prohibited from doing it.

Nor is there any particular agreement of the States with one another required in this connection in order to their harmonising on this point; for it lies already in the obligations imposed by the common human Reason as a moral lawgiver.

It is not however meant that the State must give a preference to the principles of the philosopher over the dictates of the jurist, who is a representative of the political authority; it is only meant that the philosopher ought to be heard.

The jurist, who has taken for his symbol the scales of right and the sword of justice, commonly uses the latter not merely to keep away all foreign influences from the former, but (should the one scale not sink) to throw his sword into it.

The jurist, who is not at the same time a moral philosopher, is under the greatest temptation to do this, because the function of his office is only to apply existing laws, and not to enquire whether they may be in need of improvement.

And further he reckons this really lower order of his faculty as belonging by its functions to a higher rank, because it is accompanied with power; as holds also of the other two faculties of Medicine and Divinity.

Philosophy thus stands on a very humble stage below these allied authorities.

Hence it is said of Philosophy that she is the handmaid of Theology; and the same has been said of her relation to Medicine and Law.

But it is not easy to see, as has been remarked, ‘whether she bears the torch before these gracious ladies, or carries their train.’

That ‘kings will philosophise or philosophers become kings,’ is not to be expected.

Nor indeed is it to be desired, because the possession of power inevitably corrupts the free judgment of reason.

But kings or king-like nations, who govern themselves according to laws of equality, should not allow the philosophers as a class to disappear, or to be silenced; rather should they be allowed to speak forth their maxims publicly.

Nay, this is even indispensable to both for the mutual enlightenment of their functions.

Nor should this process of communicating enlightenment be jealously regarded as a kind of Propaganda, because as a class the philosophers are by their nature incapable of combining into political clubs and factions.