1
Luke Kaplan
Philosophy of Peace
Final Paper
Laura Rediehs
May 3, 2010
Introduction
Peace will be the product of the resolution of institutional and societal inadequacy. This
description may seem a bit odd, but this seems to be the conclusion that our class has found. If
society can resolve environmental problems, economic problems, political problems,
international relations problems, community/well-being problems and education problems then
peace can be achieved. This broad, somewhat unfulfilling definition of peace is actually quite
promising; it implies that peace is achievable. That said, this essay will not attempt to establish
means to peace, but rather means to a more peaceful future. I will argue that four distinct
changes must occur to achieve a greater peace in the future: a readjustment or replacement of
the liberal state, an adjustment or replacement of the United Nations, an alteration and
alleviation of cultural hegemony through media, and the embodiment of compassion by each and
every person.
Change needed
The four changes proposed can be seen as an ends, but more importantly they all have the
capacity to be a means to the end, hence their propensity to create positive change is much
higher. So, before going through the specifics of resolving problems through massive overhaul,
it is important to pinpoint what must be changed, and what a near future world should look like.
Fortunately, our class has already done this, and for the most part my views parallel those
presented by the class. For clarity of argument, I will explain the future goal that I believe can
be achieved through the four institutional and social changes I have asserted.
2
In each of the class’ categories, I will indentify those points that cover and embody the
category as a whole most effectively. From there, I will begin a discussion of each of the four
changes and their impacts on the categories. Environmental sustainability will be essential in a
future world – climate change is going to force the world to adjust drastically in order account
for sustaining human prosperity. This, combined with the finite nature of planet earth’s
resources, along with the other environmental problems require that we adjust to a 100%
sustainable system through the adoption of technologies and the reduction of extraction and
waste throughput.
Economics must be changed, inequality is at the root of to many problems
and the global economy further marginalizes those without economic power. A move to a
localized economy as well as higher levels of corporate social responsibility must be present in a
future world.
Politically, an adjustment must be made in order to promote more individual
empowerment in the political process – this includes more political parties and government
transparency. On the international scale, more emphasis must be placed on international
cooperation and international rule of law. Communication, community and well-being must be
enforced in the minds of all global citizens in order to create toleration, understanding, and a fair
representation of views. This includes toleration, respect, diversity, and civil liberties. Our
education systems must improve; more money, focus, and talent must be dedicated to a diverse,
artistic, and intellectually challenging curriculum on all education levels. Education should not
be an opportunity, but a right.
The six main categories our class indentified - environmental sustainability , economics,
politics, international relations , community/well-being and education – are the areas that I
believe require catalysts for change. The four changes I have proposed regarding the liberal
3
state, United Nations, media hegemony and compassion embracement all exist within the
categories, but go beyond and account for the necessary ends present in the class’ six categories.
Also, the changes in each of the four major changes were chosen because they are present across
the spectrum of potential change, unconfined to single categories.
The Liberal State
For the purposes of this essay the liberal state can be assigned the definition: a
government system designed to combine the powers of democratic government with liberal
values about the freedom of the individual(Newton 354). Be warned, though the government
system is designed to embody these values, it does not necessarily do so effectively. This section
is a discussion of why the liberal state needs to be adjusted or replaced. The manner in which
problems of the liberal states affect each of the six categories will be discussed and finally,
proposals for a new structure will be considered.
Calling for a readjustment or replacement of the liberal state (referring mostly to the
liberal state in the United States), logically implies that there is something inherently or
structurally wrong with the system. Robert Dahl, one of the most influential American political
scientists of our day has identified many of the problems of the United States’ liberal state.
According the Dahl, the United States was one of the first modern nations to experiment with
democracy, and the current constitution came as a replacement to the much more democratic
Articles of Confederation. The (wealthy) framers replaced the Articles with the constitution
because the Articles allowed too much upward political mobility for those without economic
power – fast an unorganized change was occurring. The framers therefore organized the new
constitution to slow progress and allow those with economic power to gain political power. The
framers were attempting to maintain the aristocracy in democracy, according to Dahl. They did
4
so by institutionalizing a majoritarian electorate (which results in just two parties), a very
unrepresentative senate, a totally undemocratic body of justices, and a powerful president.
Furthermore, because of the Connecticut compromise, power is organized by the state instead of
the individual in federal government – this means that someone in Idaho has more voting
influence over California than someone in California in federal affairs. This inequality of
individual power manifests in both senate and presidential elections (Dahl).
Now let’s take a moment to look at the implications of these problems on the six
categories. In terms of environmental sustainability the United States presents a number of
serious impediments. As mentioned, the United States government is designed to slow change
and promote the aristocracy in democracy. The ecological crisis is a pressing and immediate
issue that requires quick response, something that the liberal state is not equipped to
handle(Scheuerman). Second, industry is based on the extraction of resources, which puts it at
odds with environmental considerations (Ward). Dahl explains that the liberal states was
designed to promote the interests of the wealthy, those involved in industry; hence, the power
structure is such that the environment is second to economic incentives.
Similarly, if the power structure is such that political positions have a propensity to go to
the wealthy, then economic inequality is structural organized in our government. And without
serious compassion (to be discussed in detail later on), the wealthy will not redistribute money
for a more equal distribution of wealth. In two separate essays Jean-Jacques Rousseau fluidly
pinpoints the economic problems of the liberal state. According to Rousseau, referring to the
confederate state (essentially synonymous with the liberal state), “we have not supposed men to
be such as they ought to be - good, generous, disinterested, and loving public good from motives
5
of human sympathy - but such as they are, unjust, greedy, and preferring their own interests to
everything else (Rousseau 63 PoPP).”
Government structures, therefore, cannot be designed to promote the needs of the
wealthy, as human’s natural interest will come into play and result in compassionless play.
The liberal state also implies an essentiality of property rights, which according to Rousseau is
the basis of inequality, “…as soon as one man realized that it was useful for a single individual
to have provisions for two, equality disappeared, property came into existence…(Rousseau 51
DOI).”
As a readjustment of the liberal state stands as a political adjustment, it very simply
addresses political problems. The US liberal state has a majoritarian electorate system, and the
only concrete rule in political science states that majoritarian electoral system (one person wins
and others lose) will result in a two-party dominant system (Draper). This does not allow or
varying of viewpoints within the polis. Also, the inequality of representation by the states
discussed by Dahl means that viewpoints are unequally represented
In terms of international affairs, studies indicate that higher levels of democracy
demonstrate less violent global affairs (Draper). Hence, if the United States can move to a more
democratic state, less violent engagement might be seen.
Communication, community, and well-being and Education go together in gaining
benefits from a restructuring of the liberal state. If viewpoints are more represented, discourse is
more encouraged, and the wealthy are not tyrannizing over the poor, strides for more equal
treatment are achievable. For example, countries with proportional representation systems rank
higher on quality of life studies. Also, education rates and quality are higher in those countries
(Newton).
6
It is clear that we must seriously overhaul or replace the liberal state. As mentioned
above, we must move to a system of proportional representation in order to create positive
change and representative viewpoints. This will allow for political influence of all persons and
the speed to account for environmental problems. A move to a system where states govern
themselves within a guiding federal state in which political systems can be experimented with
and adopted to promote social reform, and people’s beliefs can be more accurately represented
Global Government
This section differs from the above in that it will not try to connect to each of the specific
six categories, but attempt to articulate how international peace can be achieved. This is because
international government deserves significant attention and the confines of this paper indicate it
more sensibly to discuss the global government, and let the reader understand and assume the
somewhat straightforward positive social change that will come from this. This section is a
discussion of the necessity for a global authority, and the manner in which it can be effective at
achieving international peace
Freud, in a letter to Einstein addressing the question, “Why War,”
“Wars will only be prevented with certainty if mankind unites in setting up a central
authority to which the right of giving judgment upon all conflicts of interest shall be
handed over. There are clearly two separate requirements involved in this: the creation of
a supreme agency and its endowment with the necessary power. One without the other
would be useless”(Freud 3)
Freud goes on to explain that the League of Nations is such a central authority, but is not
endowed the necessary power, rendering it an essentially useless agency. It seems incorrect to
deem the United Nations useless as it does do great things for the world, but it does not fulfill
the goal that Freud prescribes. It is an operational tool to support positive worldwide social
7
progress and make efforts to act cooperatively between countries, but its organization and nature
do not have the capacity to prevent war, according to Freud.
Let us take a closer look at the United Nations, its goals, and the actual manner of
practice. The United Nations preambles states its goals as follows,
“WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
 to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has
brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
 to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
 to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from
treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
 to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
 to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and
 to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
 to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force
shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
 to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social
advancement of all peoples” (United Nations)
These assertions represent exactly what a Global Government or international
cooperation should embody. These goals are compatible with the values of the six categories .
And to the United Nations credit, they work very hard to do many of these things.
Unfortunately, these assertions do not grant any kind of supreme or sovereign power that Freud
indicates is necessary for mass prevention of war.
The United Nations shortcoming is that it promotes its own system of inequality through
the Security Council. The United States, France, Britain, Russia, and China sit on this council
with the power to veto any UN resolution. If the notions of Kant’s perpetual peace, Freud’s
argument and the existence of a Security Council are synthesized, a very interesting
contradiction arises. Though the UN’s goals are compatible with many of Kant’s articles of
perpetual peace, the Security Council contradicts Kant’s 2nd article, “No Independent States,
8
Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange,
Purchase, or Donation” as well as his 5th article, “No state shall by force interfere with the
constitution or government of another state (Kant)”
If Freud’s beliefs are embraced, and the United Nations is given authority to keep peace,
but maintains the inequality of power inherent in the Security Council, then one could argue that
those five countries have some dominion over all the others in that they have power far greater.
Hence, an increase in power of the current United Nations would not be in the interest of peace,
despite Freud’s assertion, because the UN does not embody the necessary traits to maintain
peace, in the context of Kant’s argument.
Furthermore, Kant asserts that “standing armies shall in time be totally abolished.” All
five of the United Nation’s security council hold standing armies and nuclear weapons. A
potential global government, which is necessary for international peace, must embody many of
the United Nation’s values, but must be rid of the internal structural contradictions of the UN. A
global government that is effective and fair would embody all of Kant’s articles of perpetual
peace, all of the United Nation’s preamble, and be void of structural impediments to peace.
Media Hegemony
Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony – “the domination of a people’s culture
– ways of thinking, believing, and behaving – by those who own the culture’s idea ‘idea
factories,” serves as a very important model for weeding out societal inadequacy. Fred Exoo
takes this idea further and applies it to the mass media, a for-profit industry achieving ubiquity in
modern society. Given this omnipresence, it can be assumed that the media has serious
hegemonic implications that inform the way we think, believe and behave. This theory assumes
9
that people within a society are, in a way, actually controlled by economic elites working in the
media.
The confines of this paper do not allow for a convincing argument that cultural hegemony
is occurring , so from here it will be assumed that you agree with myself, Gramsci, and Exoo that
the media is acting as a hegemonic force. To present the theory in another manner, I will offer a
quote from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave,
“Imagine,” Plato asks, “the condition of men living in a sort of cavernous chamber
underground. Here they have been from childhood, chained by the leg and also the neck,
so they cannot move and can see only what is in front of them. At some distance higher
up is the light of a fire burning behind them; and between the prisoners and the fire is a
track with a parapet built along it, like the screen at a puppet show, which hides the
performers while they show their puppets over the top…Behind this parapet image
persons carrying along various artificial objects, including figures of men and animals in
wood or stone or other materials, which project above the parapet. Prisoners so
confined would have seen nothing of themselves or of one another, except the shadows
thrown by the firelight on the way of the cave facing them…Such prisoners would
recognize as reality nothing but the shadows of the artificial objects”
The allegory of the cave, as Plato describes it, can easily be explicated to account for the
media hegemony. Economic elites are performing a puppet show merely for profit, and the
people observing (everyone) perceive reality as the media portrays it. According to Exoo, the
media reiterates hegemonies embracing violence, male dominance, and environmental
indifference, among other questionable beliefs. People do not report to enjoying this type of
media more, but the media industry has found monetary success with this method, and does not
want to change (Exoo). And according to Plato, Gramsci, and Exoo, this results in viewers
believing what in the media is and should be reality, which leads to violence, male dominance,
10
and environmental degradation by the people observing. It seems that hegemony will always
exist , but if the hegemony can be altered to support more peaceful, compassionate views that are
beneficial to humankind, positive strides can be made through the media. Martin Luther King
describes this process somewhat differently but the implications are the same, “…in a generation
when crowd pressures have unconsciously conditioned our minds and feet to move the rhythmic
drumbeat of the status quo”(21:STL). King’s civil rights movement strived, and succeeded, to
change the status quo, the dominant hegemony – this change will be needed to make our
perceived goals a reality.
Due to the confines of length, this paper will not go into detail about each of the specific
categories, and how a change in media hegemony would positively affect them, though it is
relatively straightforward. For example: if our media portrays positive messages about
environmental respect and peaceful behavior, according to hegemony theory, people will be
more respectful to the environment and more peaceful.
Compassion
The final change proposed by this paper stands as less structurally applicable than the
others, but is invaluably important to achieving the six goals we have proposed. First, we must
resolve that compassion is an inherent human trait, then I will discuss its upmost importance, and
how the resolution of all six categories goals will require compassion to achieve.
On a somewhat humorous note, Walter Wink explains, “the students were nonplussed,
you really can’t throw Molotov cocktails at people who are lying down”(47), referring to
daily protests by students in South Korea. When the police lied down, the students ceased
throwing Molotov cocktails. This is exactly the type of compassion that Rousseau explains
11
in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, in which he describes mans two principles prior to
reason. The first being, unsurprisingly, self-preservation, but the second, “a natural repugnance
to seeing any sentient being suffer or perish,” especially concerning fellow man or woman.
Rousseau actually talks about this in a somewhat negative manner, explaining that the rich are
too concerned with money to actually give proper considerations to the poor and display
compassion, but minimally. So it is exactly the task of future generations to prove Rousseau
right, but also wrong. Humankind is capable of preserving the environment, empowering the
people in political action, alleviating inequality, weeding out violence, creating a global
community, and educating all persons well, but it require compassion beyond what was given at
the “origin of inequality.”
It will require compassion for fellow man and women, but also the planet earth to
progress sustainably. Policy makers must display compassion in order to make politics more
representative and less corrupt. The wealthy must feel true compassion for those less fortunate
and offer them considerations to resolve economic disparities. Leaders of the world must be
compassionate about their own citizens and other nations in order to achieve international
governance and peaceful relations. Each and every person must practice compassion to
implement high community standards, respect, and well being for all. And we must educate our
citizens out of our compassion, and instill values of compassion in them. King explains
compassion better than anyone, “Who is my neighbor? I do not know his name. He is anyone
toward whom you are neighborly. He is anyone who lies in need at life’s roadside. He is neither
Jew nor Gentile; he is neither Russian nor American; he is neither Negro nor white. He is a
certain man – any needy man…” This attitude needs to be adopted by all persons of the word in
order to achieve the change needed.
12
Conclusion
This paper has identified four changes that necessary for achieving the six goals our class
articulated as areas where change is needed, a readjustment or replacement of the liberal state,
an adjustment or replacement of the United Nations, an alteration and alleviation of cultural
hegemony through media, and the embodiment of compassion by each and every person. This
is in order to become environmentally sustainable, empower citizens in politics, bridge economic
gaps, create international peace, promote community and well-being, and educate all persons.
These may or may not be achievable by 2040 or even, but if these four structural and social
changes are adopted serious progress can be made towards achieving better world.
13
Outside sources
Dahl, Robert Alan. How Democratic Is the American Constitution? New Haven: Yale UP, 2001.
Print.
Draper, Alan, and Ansil Ramsey. The Good Society: an Introduction to Comparative Politics.
New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. Print.
Exoo, Calvin F. The Politics of the Mass Media. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Pub., 1994. Print.
Freud, Sigmund. "Why War?" Letter to Albert Einstein. 1931. MS.
Newton, Kenneth, and Jan W. Van. Deth. Foundations of Comparative Politics. New York:
Cambridge UP, 2009. Print.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.
Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1992. Print.
Scheuerman, William E. Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time. Baltimore,
Md.: Johns Hopkins UP, 2004. Print.
Ward, Hugh. "Liberal Democracy and Sustainability." Environmental Politics June 17.3 (2008):
386-409. JSTOR. Web. 3 May 2010.