Comparing Kant's 'Thucydides'

Thucydides has a very realist perception of looking at human nature. He believed that men are only cruel and only concerned with their self-interest. The pursuit of self-interest and greed are the true driving forces behind why decisions are made. The greed that lies within man`s heart is why he relies solely on self-interest because he thinks more about what he is getting from something then how that decision if affecting others. Unless, he is directly affected though the impact of the others. Thucydides makes the claim that “…with the ordinary conventions of civilized life thrown into confusion, human nature, always ready to offend even where laws exist, showed itself proudly in its true colors, as something incapable of controlling passion,
insubordinate to the idea of justice, the enemy to anything superior to itself” Within this passage he is highlighting what would occur if there was not a civilized convention of life to a hierarchical social order that keeps everyone in check. If this is taken away, then humans will just revert to their barbaric natural state. The pursuit and greed that is within the human heart, is an innate quality within man that he does not think will ever change. In the future, he sees human beings going through the same problems and conflicts. In his eyes, history will indeed continue to repeat itself. He speaks that “the chaos of civil war as something ‘that is and always will be, as long as human nature remains the same” Throughout his writing, it is made clear that he has no intention or belief that a divine power holds the answers to the world and human nature. He believes that at his core man is not righteous, and that in times of war this is expressed even more, he believes that having a state of peace just simply puts a mask on the monster. Without having a state of peace, man will just simply fall back into anarchy. When humans are out into a warlike state, their minds are brought down to their circumstances. He also has a pessimistic vision about morality, and the place that the “moralist” should be used within peace negations, between two opposing sides, and at war time. This is expressed in his book number one with a conversation between Athens and Corcyra. Within the dialogue, the Athenians are making a decision to about whether to ally with the territory of Corcyra. The Corcoran people are making a plethora of act-based consequential moral arguments within this conversation. They are attempting at making themselves to look as a victim in the conflict as they said, “ First of all, you will not be helping aggressors, but people who are the victims of aggression.” The Corcoran people made many appeals to the morality of the Athenian people, but in the end, as the Corcoran nation was only thinking about their self-interest, the same showed to be true for Athenians. The drive behind both sides of the conversation was not about making the most “moral” decision, but it was more about how they can help their states interests more. Immanuel Kant has a very similar view about human nature. At his core, he belied that man is not moral, and he is indeed corrupt. However, instead of believing that all human beings are solely concerned with their own interests, he believed that man needs a master. He does not think that without a government man would simply throw themselves into war and anarchy, but that man needs a master in order to keep him following the correct path. The reason why man is able to make the correct moral decisions is because he is a rational being. “In man (as the only rational creature on earth), those natural capacities which are directed towards the use of his reason are such that they could be fully developed only in the species, but not in the individual. “ This is a defining difference between the ideas of Kant and Thucydides. Kant believes that the moral reasoning that man has keeps him from behaving like an animal, and it is why there is such systems in place. However Thucydides doesn’t think that man is good at all he thinks that there is more of an overall persona of greed and self-interest that is ever present within human nature, and that the use of power keeps man in his place within the hierarchical order. Thucydides believes that man uses his rationality, and intelligence to makes the best decisions for himself. Every decision that he makes is only reflection of what is best for him. Another significant difference between Kant and Thucydides opinions about ethical action in the realm of politics would be Kant`s idea of the categorical imperative.
The categorical imperative is a way of testing possible actions. The maxim of universality is as follows : Act so that the totality of maxims from which you act are such that you can regard yourself as enacting through these maxims a unified scheme of public moral perceptions , the enforcing of which by all reasonable and rational persons . According to Kant, the correct way to think about ones actions are to contemplate whether or not one would like that action to happen to you. In other words, one should use the idea of the golden rule. He thinks that humanity should use this type of guideline, so that humans do not give into their natural ways, and see it in less personal terms. In the realm of politics, if a state besides to bomb another state because they are more powerful, and they want to take advantage of the weaker states resources, using the categorical imperative, the state would only be able to bomb the second state if they were okay with that action happening to them. This idea behind moral duty and action is meant for states and leaders to shift their perspective, and make sure that they are not acting only based on self-interest. Thucydides would disagree, and say that states are only acting within their own self-interest when engaging in politics. This idea can be seen thought his comments
about the Peloponnesian war. He thinks that power is the deciding factor behind political action. Power is an element of hierarchy, and out of this hierarchy we create a sense of order. There is an accepted hierarchy in regard to how someone relates themselves to power. He believes that the response to power is the most efficient way to keep the human race from going back to their inmate unethical self-interested ways. However, even though they have different conclusions on the content and possibility of ethical action in the realm of politics, they do have similar descriptions of the human race. The only concept that separates the two philosophers about the human race’s character of collective life is the fact that Kant bases his argument behind it from his religious upbringing while Thucydides does not. Kant also believes that the human race is in an upwards positive incline when it comes to morality, and eventually we will no longer engage in war because humans will come to understand that war is not in our self-interest. In the end, there will be a state of perpetual peace, and man will see the big picture. However, Thucydides believes that man has not made such progress, and that history will continue to repeat itself because man is only worried about himself and his state. Power is the only thing that man can understand when thinking about aggression between states, and therefore man will continue to follow in the footsteps of his ancestors. Another philosopher that has a similar opinion when it comes to the interaction between the state and power is Marx Weber.
Marx Weber is another realist who believed that the power an important component to think about when we examine the use of force by the state. He believes that “we all agree that the state has the “right” to use force. The state is considered to be the sole proprietor of the use force. “Every state is founded on force,' said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated,” It is about being “political” example. It is not about perusing common goals, it is all about power. The State is an identity that claims to have a monopoly on the use of force.” The way he bases his conclusions about the possibility for ethical action in the realm of politics, is by legitimacy. The only way that an action is “ethical” is if it is legitimate. In this way, he depicts a position of absolutes when thinking about moral action. He describes three different types of legitimate authority. The first type being the traditional type such as the queen of England`s claim to the throne. She is queen because simply because her father was king. The second type of legitimacy is rational or legal legitimacy. This is claim to legitimacy is done through a process which is nationally defined and often involves the notion of the law, such as the electoral college and any
other electing system that has been put in place. The last type of legitimacy that Weber outlines is the charismatic claim to legitimacy. A charismatic claim comes from, a person seems to be touched by the grace of God, and therefore, and commands authority through their presence. There are also four different types of social action according to Weber, there is zweckrational or rational action in relation to a goal; means / end of reasoning, Wertrational or rational action in relation to a value for example, action out of conception of one’s duty. There is also affective or emotional action as well as traditional action. A similarity between Weber and Kant would be that they both at some point in their literature acknowledge the presence of a God and the concept of the divine while Thucydides does not. From these definitions of legitimacy, Weber is able to construct his conclusions on the content and possibility of ethical action in the realm of politics. Thucydides, Kant, and Weber all have a bit of a pessimistic view about human nature. They all believe that to their core, human beings are not innately righteous people. They all believe that within the realm of politics, human nature is included to pursue their own self-interest. The things that separate these great philosophers is the extent to which self-interest is used by humans or should be used by humans when contemplating ethical action. According to Thucydides, the element that is most important is power. He believes that power and force are really the most important factors then examining human action because the power of states aids the creation of hierarchical social order, and without the hierarchical social order, civilized life thrown into confusion” . The human race is very destructive, and only a rigid power based hieratic order can keep the human race from running wild. Kant on the other hand, believes that while the human race is not innately righteous he is making some improvements to himself, and as time goes on over the course of history, man will be able to take a step back to see the bigger picture in order to make the correct decisions. Through using the categorical imperative that he outlined, man will eventually come to a time of perpetual peace, and war will no longer exist because man will see that it is not within his own self-interest to continue to fight one another. He believes that having a master keeps man from pursuing his own self-interest. According to Kant, humans are the only creatures that have reason, and therefore that is why they require a master “to break his self-will and force him to obey a universally valid will under which everyone can be free. But where is he to find such a master? Nowhere else but in the human species” Man is always hoping to pursue his own individuality while staying apart of the collective society. Kant believes that the human race is overall on the upswing, and that we will equally eradicate war, and lives to please our master. Lastly, Weber believes in the concept of legitimacy when contemplating he usage of force, and political action. He breaks down each definition of legitimacy as well as the four types of social action. Through these definitions, Weber makes the following claim, "He who seeks the salvation of the soul, of his own and of others, should not seek it along the avenue of politics, for the quite different tasks of politics can only be solved by violence." The legitimacy of the state authorizes the usage of force within the political realm. Violence is not seen as legitimate if it is not done through the correct avenue of the state. These three philosophers do have differences in how they define the usage of force, and the future perceptions of possible peace, but they do also have a foundational consistency when it comes to human nature.