Classical liberal thinkers and their theories
Classical liberal thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and Adam Smith developed various ideas that have helped scholars gain a better understanding of international relations studies. This research paper attempts to describe their theories in-depth and how they apply to international relations. Furthermore, the aim of this research paper is to evaluate the similarities and differences between their theories.
Immanuel Kant's Theories
Immanuel Kant's famous and last piece of writing called "Perpetual Peace" was written in 1795 and has played an integral role in various places that defense will always be considered to be the most important principles, even before acquiring massive amounts of wealth. He has stated that no matter what form the government is being run, the sole purpose of a nation will be to defend themselves against any forceful takeovers by international states. Hence, it is a necessity to build a substantial and concrete force for protecting the nation. Moreover, he has also pointed out that as the economic stability and prosperity of a nation grows, the threats towards its national security begin to increase as well. He has also argued against the view of Mercantilists, who believe that an increase in the wealth of other nations, with whom a state trades with, leads to more feelings of jealousy, thus triggering them to engage in a state of war, so that they could satiate their hunger for more riches. However, Smith believes that instead of feeling jealous, nations should feel happy for them, so that international relations are solidified, and they aim to excel more while having a cordial and harmonious approach towards humanity.
On numerous occasions, he has stressed upon the fact that nations employ the Hobbesian approach, which states that nations automatically cooperate with other nations because they are afraid of their military growth, thus leading to forceful cooperation with the more powerful states. Moreover, he has always believed that the presence of foreign trade will reduce the chances of war and increase the likelihood of being more peaceful and cordial towards each other for mutual benefits, which once again contradicts with the mercantilist approach.
Jeremy Bentham's Theories
Jeremy Bentham's work called "A Fragment on Government" has caught a lot of attention, as did the work of other philosophers (Deuchars, 2014). Being a modernist/rationalist philosopher, he strongly encouraged activities that led to more discoveries because he believed that discoveries and improvement always go hand in hand. His views have always been positive and continued to encourage a state of utopian nature in this theory.
He has always addressed the principle of utility as a fundamental axiom (Deuchars, 2014). According to Bentham, people don't always end up breaking the law because they don't have an inclination to do so. He states that the human nature is driven by this fundamental axiom, which allows them to stay in their limits because of the presence of the law, thus indirectly forcing them to obey the system. This scenario will be addressed as the perfect universal system of law. Since he always used to make sure that his theories were backed up by logical reasoning, so he used to be satisfied with his arguments.
His most famous theory regarding international ethics and relations was that of utilitarianism. According to this theory, man only chooses to do that task if he believes that its results will make him happy, thus deeming that action to be right. Similarly, an action will be wrong if it doesn't produce fruitful results. These results aren't just confined to the person performing the actions but the surrounding people as well. Hence, this shows that utilitarianism contradicts with principles of egoism, where a person only thinks about his interests and aims towards pursuing them. However, utilitarianism isn't the same as ethical theories, in particular, on the grounds of defining the rightness or wrongness of an act. An act can be considered to be wrong if done for the wrong reasons, regardless of the fact that it is the right act. Being a hedonist, Bentham used to measure happiness by gaining more pleasure instead of pain, thus showing that human actions will be attributed towards the benefits they receive from either pain or pleasure. Hence, this shows why utility has gained so much prominence in the contemporary world as well.
Similarities between their Theories
Even though Smith and Kant's basis for the behavior of compassion towards others is different, both of them ultimately believe that for nations to prosper, they need to keep in mind other people's interests as well, so that they can strike a balance between their desire to gain more wealth while being compassionate towards not just people domestically but also internationally. Moreover, keeping in mind other people's interest will allow them to reduce the possibility of war and conflict and benefit from the cordial relationships with international states. On the other hand, Kant and Bentham seem to have some similarities as well. As we have noticed, the categorical imperative and Bentham's theory of utilitarianism aim to give people a more stable and moral structure to adhere to while making all decisions. Moreover, Bentham encouraged people to follow the hedonic calculus for measuring the rightness and wrongness of their actions, whereas, Kant told people to measure their decisions using the following equation: 'Goodwill+duty=Moral action.' Hence, showing that even though they are employing different scales, their basic aim is still the same.
Differences between their Theories
When discussing the differences between them, Bentham and Kant differ significantly as well. According to Bentham, the morality of a decision is solely dependent on the results of his/her action, whereas Kant argues that the morality of an action can only be judged based on the intention of the action performed. Moreover, Kant doesn't give any weight to emotions, whereas, Bentham has claimed that emotions do play an integral role in gauging the morality of a decision. Followed by this, the system of utilitarianism applies to any situation, whereas Kant's theories aren't applicable in non-moral conducts. Bentham barely mentions the restraining role governments can adopt in shaping the morality of people, whereas, Kant has mentioned that in his writings. Moreover, Bentham stresses on attaining self-satisfaction first before opting for something else, while Kant and Smith have asked people to put forth other feelings before oneself so that peace and harmony are maintained at all costs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, all three philosophers have played a critical role in the field of international relations and in guiding nations into adopting a more logical and peaceful approach towards handling international as well as domestic matters. There are several similarities in the theories presented by them, and at the same time, there are several differences as well. But most importantly, all these philosophers have provided guidelines in the field of international relations.
References
Deuchars, R. (2014). Foundations on Silt: Jeremy Bentham, Liberalism and the Science of International Law. History and Theory of International Law, pp.22-35.
Filipowich, A. (2003). Adam Smith’s Perspective of International Relations. Glendon Papers: Theories and Methods of International Studies, 3, pp.29-39.
Teson, F. (1992). The Kantian theory of international law. Columbia Law Review, 92(1), pp.53-102.
Wyatt-Walter, A. (1996). Adam Smith and the liberal tradition in international relations. Review of International Studies, 22(1), pp.5-28.
