Graduate studies at Western
Hobbes Studies 25 (1):6-20 (2012)
|Abstract||In their theories of international order, Hobbes and Kant are not as far apart as earlier interpreters have claimed. Both consider peace between states and mutual respect for their sovereign independence to be necessary for securing domestic order. For both Hobbes and Kant, order arises from the very “independency“ of states in a manner that is different from the independence of individuals in a state of nature. Both regard the independency of states and their commitment to the prosperity of their subjects as principles that support a long-term orientation toward peaceable cooperation. The most significance difference between Hobbes and Kant concerning international order arises from Kant's attributing to individuals a cosmopolitan right that makes the international order more subject to potential conflict concerning the rights of individuals, but also gives his theory a stronger normative framework for the development of shared norms than what is found in Hobbes's political theory|
|Keywords||international order international relations cosmopolitan right peace|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Charles Covell (1998). Kant and the Law of Peace: A Study in the Philosophy of International Law and International Relations. St. Martin's Press.
Pauline Kleingeld (1998). Kant's Cosmopolitan Law: World Citizenship for a Global Order. Kantian Review 2:72-90.
Andres Rosler (2011). Odi Et Amo? Hobbes on the State of Nature. Hobbes Studies 24 (1):91-111.
Richard Tuck (1999). The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order From Grotius to Kant. Clarendon Press.
Larry Krasnoff (2012). Voluntarism and Conventionalism in Hobbes and Kant. Hobbes Studies 25 (1):43-65.
Patricia Sheridan (2012). Resisting the Scaffold: Self-Preservation and Limits of Obligation in Hobbes's Leviathan. Hobbes Studies 24 (2):137-157.
Burleigh T. Wilkins (2007). Kant on International Relations. Journal of Ethics 11 (2):147 - 159.
Katrin Flikschuh (2012). Elusive Unity: The General Will in Hobbes and Kant. Hobbes Studies 25 (1):21-42.
Hedley Bull (2012). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Columbia University Press.
D. Dyzenhaus (2001). Hobbes and the Legitimacy of Law. Law and Philosophy 20 (5):461-498.
Pauline Kleingeld (2004). Approaching Perpetual Peace: Kant’s Defence of a League of States and His Ideal of a World Federation. European Journal of Philosophy 12 (3):304-325.
Ted H. Miller (2002). Wild Ranging: Prudence and Philosophy's Imitation of God in the Works of Thomas Hobbes. Inquiry 45 (1):81 – 87.
Paul Guyer (2012). Hobbes Is of the Opposite Opinion Kant and Hobbes on the Three Authorities in the State. Hobbes Studies 25 (1):91-119.
Gabriella Slomp (2007). Kant Against Hobbes: Reasoning and Rhetoric. Journal of Moral Philosophy 4 (2):207-222.
Sharon Anderson-Gold (2007). Cosmopolitan Community and the Law of World Citizenship. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 3:45-50.
Added to index2012-06-16
Total downloads16 ( #81,761 of 734,153 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 734,153 )
How can I increase my downloads?