Morals in History. Violence and the Ideal of Peace

Abstract

To reach peace and harmony is one of the most abiding dreams of humankind. I say dreams, because, in fact, the situation of war, terrorism and violence1 is unfortunately too frequent in one or another part of the world. The problem of searching for a reasonable and moral political project centered on a harmonious and peaceful existence which eliminates violence – especially its most striking collective manifestations, war and terrorism – has always been an important task for many thinkers concerned with the sense of history. Peace and non-violence as moral goals are traditionally rooted in Oriental traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. We have also some examples of Western thinkers who are concerned with the horrible phenomenon of violence and war, mainly after the Renaissance. This is the case, for example, of Erasmus (XVIth century), Hugo Grotius (XVIIth century), l’Abbe de Saint-Pierre et Rousseau (XVIIIth century), etc. In fact they are all the predecessors of Kant. However, universal peace has never been reached in actual history, in spite of the theoretical analyses and the frequent refusal of violence from the moral point of view. This problem leads us to the consideration of the roots of human aggression, so that we can later discuss the possibility of eradication of violence from history. Consequently, in this study we shall first briefly examine the problem of human aggressiveness from two main points of view: the naturalistinnatist hypothesis and the cultural one. Then, we shall analyse some philosophical approaches to the problem of violence in history and the moral goal of peace. For that, Kant and Paul Ricoeur will be our guides. Finally, a brief comparison of their proposals and some personal conclusions will be exposed. At the theoretical and moral levels, most individuals and cultures