Links Between East and West 41 Kant and Hegel 3 东西方的连接41 - 康德与黑格尔3

The conflict theories of Kant and Hegel possess universal logic that can be used successfully to analyze historically important conflicts. Three conflicts within the last century that impacted the direction of global history were World War I from 1914 to 1918, the Vietnam War from 1955 to 1975, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict which started in 1948. These conflicts hold significance first because of their unparalleled scale. World War I was referred to as “the war to end all wars.” While it only dragged on for four years, it was the most brutal and widespread of its time. The Vietnam War, in effect, spanned over two decades, making it one of the most lingering conflicts of the twentieth century. The Vietnam War was also a classic example of proxy warfare where the United States and the Soviet Union backed a different faction in Vietnam. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been often viewed as the most prolonged in history. Its sheer complexity is unmatched. These conflicts deserve attention not necessarily due to their value in providing critical lessons, but rather for their representativeness, helping one find patterns regarding human conflicts.

There is merit to the argument that Kant and Hegel might be unsuited to analyze important conflicts. Regarding Kant, some might argue that his ideas about the nature, process, and results of warfare are outdated, making them irrelevant when looking at modern warfare. Modern warfare contains a complexity that could not be foreseen during Kant’s era. For example, Kant certainly could not foresee the rapid development of machine technology and the invention of automatic weaponry, submarines, guided missiles, and nuclear arsenals. These technologies and inventions have made wars more large-scale and serious, while at the same time introducing previously non-existent determent factors. In particular, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been supported by certain groups who believe that they deter wars due to the inevitable occurrence of mutual destruction. According to some, the unprecedented speed of warfare development renders Kant’s conflict theories (in which war is unavoidable and conducive to social advancement) obsolete.

Regarding Hegel, one can similarly criticize the application of his theories to modern conflict. His conflict theories are closely intertwined with his dialectics and his dialectics are prone to be criticized as being overly abstract. In Hegel’s writings, he does not provide an adequate number of examples to display his dialectics in historical action. As a result, it might be inaccurate to portray specific modern conflicts with Hegel’s theories, as the underlying meanings or purposes can be unclear.

However, while it might be true that the details of both philosophers’ theories do not correspond with modern conflicts, they still are quite relevant as the nature of human conflict has not changed substantially. Beginning with World War I, when one examines the causes, the process, and the results of war, several Kantian theories can help with interpretation. Here, it is appropriate to utilize Kantian theories since, as mentioned before, Kant has a specific focus on warfare. It would be logically relevant to analyze such grand warfare using the thoughts of a philosopher who aims to thoroughly study war in his writings. Additionally, unlike Hegel, Kant holds a clear opinion on the resolution of warfare – he lays out detailed blueprints for institutions that must be established and ideas that must be realized to end warfare (i.e., a federation of free states and a set of universal principles).

One major cause of World War I was the forming of alliances. Many European countries, prior to 1914, sought protection by allying with other powers. For example, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany initially created the Dual Alliance of 1879 between Germany and Austria-Hungary. When Italy joined in 1882, the alliance of the three countries became the Triple Alliance. To counter the Triple Alliance, France, Britain, and Russia formed the Triple Entente. The Triple Entente alarmed Germany, hastening the brewing of large-scale warfare. If one country in an alliance went to war, the others were obligated to follow. Therefore, when Austria first declared war on Serbia in 1914, the declaration immediately prompted many allies of the two states to participate, culminating in the outbreak of a world war (as countries and colonies from Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas participated).

Kantian conflict theory can explain the logic behind alliances helping to cause the war. Kant argues that the “unsocial sociability” of man is what essentially brings antagonism and conflict. “Unsocial sociability” points to the coexistence of a belligerent and gregarious side of human nature. This trait was demonstrated directly in the World War I alliances. Within an alliance, the countries were “social” and quite friendly towards each other. For instance, Britain and France shared a close relationship prior to and during World War I. Britain felt obliged to protect France. However, between alliances, countries were extremely “unsocial” and hostile towards each other. This can be easily proven, as otherwise the war would not have escalated to such a scale. The sociability of man forged strong bonds within allied powers, making them want to mutually protect, yet the unsociability brewed intense conflict between alliances. When combined, one can see the immense forces fueling the nations embroiled in this war.

One product of World War I was the League of Nations, formed in 1919. It aimed to preserve peace and check warmongering action. Though it was short-lived, at its peak the League consisted of 63 countries across the globe. The League was arguably the closest the world has come to Kant’s proposal of a global federation. Many of the League’s goals and functions mirror Kant’s federation. The federation, according to Kant, must be based on principles that ensure members are treated equally and possess freedom. There must also be a dispute resolution mechanism that would eventually ensure a collective security, where each individual state depends upon a single and unified force for protection. Any attempt to break this collective security would be checked by the other members of the federation. 

The League of Nations held to comparable principles. Most member states had the right to voice their opinions and vote for decisions on an equal platform. The organization emphasized collective security by pushing for disarmament and the settling of disputes via arbitration. Many smaller nations, such as Czechoslovakia, adhered loyally to the League and relied on it for protection. All these characteristics resemble the vision Kant has for his federation. Kant’s conflict theories adequately assist in explaining the underlying logic of alliances causing World War I and the features of the League of Nations.

Another recent war that one can analyze through the lens of Kant’s theories is the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War lasted for about 20 years, though the period this paper will delve into is after America’s joining in 1965. This war, at its essence, was a clash between the communist regime in North Vietnam backed by the U.S.S.R. and the Southern democratic government backed by the U.S., making it a proxy war. The communist North wanted to unite Vietnam after a prolonged period of domestic disunity. 

The war’s outlook changed when the U.S. joined in 1965. America not only increased the intensity of the war by providing money and supplies to the battlegrounds, but it also elevated the war to a clash of political ideology. America feared that the prolonged civil war could cause communism to spread across Vietnam, leading to more severe consequences for the wholeness of the state. It justified its efforts by maintaining that it must stop the civil war and, subsequently, the threat of communism. This attempt to justify an interference in the internal affairs of another state resembles Kant’s fifth preliminary article in his essay “Perpetual Peace.” Kant points out that “no state shall forcibly interfere in the constitution and government of another state” unless “a state, through internal discord, were to split into two parts." Kant reasons that “it could not be reckoned as interference in another state’s constitution if an external state were to lend support to one of them, because their condition is one of anarchy." America reasoned along similar lines, trying to justify its efforts in Vietnam by highlighting the dangers brought by its civil war. America’s justification (though arguably not morally or politically correct) can thus be understood through considering Kant’s fifth preliminary article.

America additionally justified its participation by arguing that ending the conflict in Vietnam would help to maintain regional peace and restore order. However, in the end, America’s justification failed. Not only did the war cost the lives of more than 50,000 American soldiers, but it also elevated the intensity of the conflict, costing the lives of many more civilians through violence. America’s inability to justify its efforts can be explained by Kant’s theory of rejection of warfare. Kant refutes the argument that “violence benefits the best interest of the world and brings unity to disunited peoples.” In his book The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant provides a powerful rebuttal by writing, “But all these supposedly good intentions cannot wash away the stain of injustice from the means which are used to implement them." Kant believes that in the process of realizing these “supposedly good intentions,” many states would use violence and brute force to suppress opposing forces. Sometimes, the violence contradicts the preservation of dignity and worth of human life, which for Kant, would be unjust and unacceptable.

To strengthen his rebuttal against the argument that “violence benefits the best interest of the world,” Kant definitively crucifies any act of war in his work Religions within the Bounds of Bare Reason, as “war creates more evil than it destroys." In the case of the Vietnam War, this quote was demonstrated not just in the violence and bloodshed, but also in the ensuing refugee crisis. In 1975 and 1976, more than 20,000 people migrated out of Vietnam, constituting a serious humanitarian crisis. 

Hegel’s conceptions of conflict differ significantly from that of Kant... 

Works Cited

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Introduction to the Philosophy of History: With Selections   from the Philosophy of Right. Translated by Leo Rauch, Hackett Pub. Co, 1988.

Kant, Immanuel. Kant: Political Writings. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

康德和黑格尔的冲突理论具有普遍的逻辑性，可以用于分析历史上重要的冲突。上个世纪影响全球历史走向的三场冲突分别是 1914 年至 1918 年的第一次世界大战、1955 年至 1975 年的越南战争以及始于 1948 年的巴以冲突。这些冲突之所以重要，首先是因为其规模空前之大。第一次世界大战被称为 "终结所有战争的战争"。虽然战争只持续了四年，但却是当时最残酷、广泛的战争；越南战争实际上持续了二十多年，是二十世纪最持久的冲突之一。越南战争也是代理人战争的典型例子，美国和苏联在越南支持对立的势力；巴以冲突常常被视为历史上最旷日持久的冲突，其复杂程度无与伦比。这些冲突之所以值得关注，不一定是因为它们提供了众多关键教训，而是因为它们具有极强的代表性，可以帮助人们找到人类冲突的普遍模式与规律。

有观点认为，康德和黑格尔可能不适合分析重要冲突，这种观点诚然有一定道理。关于康德，有些人可能会说，他关于战争的本质、过程和结果的观点已经过时，因此与现代战争无关。现代战争的复杂性是康德时代无法预见的。例如，康德肯定无法预见机器技术的飞速发展以及自动武器、潜艇、制导导弹和核武器的发明。这些技术和发明使战争变得更大规模、更严重，同时也引入了以前不存在的决定性因素。特别是，核武器的扩散得到了某些团体的支持，他们认为，由于不可避免的相互毁灭，核武器可以阻止战争。战争发展的空前速度使康德的冲突理论（战争不可避免且有利于社会进步）可能变得过时。

关于黑格尔，人们同样可以批评将其理论应用于现代冲突的做法。他的冲突理论与他的辩证法紧密相连，而他的辩证法容易被批评为过于抽象。在黑格尔的著作中，他没有提供足够多的例子来展示他的辩证法在历史行动中的应用。因此，代入黑格尔理论在现代的具体冲突可能并不准确，因为其背后的含义或目的可能并不明确。

不过，尽管两位哲学家的理论细节可能确实与现代冲突不符，但它们仍然具有相当的现实意义，因为人类冲突的本质并没有发生实质性的改变。从第一次世界大战开始，当人们研究战争的起因、过程和结果时，康德的一些理论可以帮助进行解释。在此，使用康德理论是合适的，因为如前所述，康德特别关注战争。从逻辑上讲，用一位旨在在其著作中深入研究战争的哲学家的思想来分析如此宏大的战争是有意义的。此外，与黑格尔不同，康德对战争的解决持有明确的观点--他为结束战争必须建立的制度和必须实现的理念（即自由国家的联邦和一套普遍原则）描绘了详细的蓝图。

第一次世界大战爆发的一主要原因是大肆的联盟。1914 年前，许多欧洲国家通过与其他大国结盟来寻求保护。例如，德皇威廉二世最初于 1879 年在德国和奥匈帝国之间建立了 "双重同盟"，1882 年意大利加入后，三国联盟成为三国同盟。为了对抗三国同盟，法国、英国和俄国组成了三国协约。三国协约惊动了德国，加剧了大规模战争的酝酿。如果同盟中的一个国家开战，其他国家就必须跟随进入战争。因此，当奥地利在 1914 年首次向塞尔维亚宣战时，这一宣言立即促使这两国的盟国参战，最终爆发了世界级别的大战（来自亚洲、非洲、欧洲和美洲的国家和殖民地均参战）。

康德的冲突理论可以解释联盟成立促使战争发生的逻辑。康德认为，人类的 "非社会交际性 "是导致对立和冲突的根本原因。"非社会交际性 "指的是人性中好战与好客并存的一面。这一特征在第一次世界大战的同盟中得到了直接体现。在联盟内部，各国都是 "社会人"，彼此相当友好。例如，英国和法国在一战前和一战期间关系密切。然而，在联盟之间，各国却极不 "社会"，相互敌视。这一点很容易得到证实，否则战争就不会升级到如此规模。人类的社会性在盟国内部建立了牢固的纽带，使他们想要相互保护，而不社会性又在不同联盟的国家之间酿成了不可放松的张力。如果将这些因素结合起来，我们就会发现有巨大的力量在推动各国卷入这场战争。

第一次世界大战的产物之一是 1919 年成立的国际联盟，它旨在维护和平，遏制战争。虽然成立时间不长，但国联在鼎盛时期由全球 63 个国家组成。可以说，国联是历史中最接近康德提出的全球联邦的组织，其许多目标和职能都与康德的联邦相吻合。康德认为，联邦必须建立在确保成员待遇平等和拥有自由的原则之上，此外，还必须有一组能确保威胁集体安全的争端被解决的机制，在这一机制下，每个国家都依赖于一支统一的力量来提供保护。任何破坏这种集体安全的企图都将受到联邦其他成员的遏制。

国联坚持类似的原则。大多数成员国都有权在平等的平台上发表意见和投票决定。该组织通过推动裁军和通过仲裁解决争端来强调集体安全的重要性。捷克斯洛伐克等许多小国忠实地加入了联盟，并依靠联盟提供的保护。所有这些特点都与康德的联邦愿景相似。至此，康德的冲突理论有助于解释导致第一次世界大战的联盟这一因素以及国联的内在运作逻辑。

人们可以从康德理论的视角分析的另一场近期战争是越南战争。越南战争持续了约 20 年，但本文要探讨的是美国 1965 年参战之后的时期。这场战争的本质是苏联支持的北越共产主义政权与美国支持的南方民主政府之间的冲突，是一场代理人战争，北越共产主义政权希望在长期的国内分裂后统一越南。

1965 年美国的加入改变了战争的前景。美国不仅通过向战场提供资金和物资增加了战争的强度，还将战争提升为政治意识形态的冲突。美国担心旷日持久的内战会导致共产主义在越南蔓延，从而对国家的整体性造成更严重的后果。美国认为必须阻止内战，进而阻止共产主义的威胁，以此来为自己的努力辩解。这种试图为干涉别国内政辩护的做法类似于康德在《永久和平》一文中的第五条初步论述。康德指出，"任何国家都不得强行干涉另一个国家的宪法和政府"，除非 "一个国家因内部不和而分裂成两个部分"。康德的理由是，"如果一个外部国家向另一个国家的宪法提供支持，这不能算作干涉，因为他们的状况是无政府状态"。美国按照类似的思路进行推理，试图通过强调越南内战带来的危险来证明其在越南的努力是正当的。因此，美国的理由（尽管可以说在道德或政治上并不正确）可以通过康德的第五条初步论述来理解。

美国还为自己的参与辩解说，结束越南冲突有助于维护地区和平和恢复秩序。然而，美国的辩解最终还是失败了。战争不仅夺去了5万多名美国士兵的生命，还加剧了冲突的激烈程度，使更多平民因暴力而丧生。美国无法为其所作所为辩解，这可以用康德的战争拒绝理论来解释。康德驳斥了 "暴力有利于世界的最大利益，并给不团结的人民带来团结"一论点。康德在其《道德的形而上学》一书中提出了有力的反驳，他写道："但所有这些所谓的良好意图都无法洗去用来实施这些意图的手段上的不公正污点"。康德认为，在实现这些 "所谓的良好愿望 "的过程中，许多国家会使用暴力和蛮力来镇压反对力量。有时，暴力与维护人类生命的尊严和价值相矛盾，这对康德来说是不公正和不可接受的。

为了加强对 "暴力有利于世界的最大利益 "这一论点的反驳，康德在其著作《理性范围内的宗教》中明确地将任何战争行为钉在十字架上，因为 "战争制造的罪恶比它摧毁的罪恶更多"。在越南战争中，这句话不仅体现在暴力和流血事件中，也体现在随之而来的难民危机中。1975 年至 1976 年，2 万多人迁出越南，构成了严重的人道主义危机。

黑格尔的冲突概念与康德的冲突概念大相径庭......