The argument of Kant against the notion of terrorism appears well demonstrated by the philosophers view of world order and collective governmental responsibility as an extension of mans movement away from a state of being in nature. Kant argues that the process of global authority is actually a necessitated part of the progression of man from nature and the realization of Nature's secret plan to bring forth a perfectly constituted state as the only condition in which the natural capacities of mankind can be developed completely (Kant 50) supports the notion that terrorism, which develops from mans singular view, is not a beneficial or well
Mans complicity in the development of the central notion of a world order is defined not only by humanity, but by the development of a perfect moral condition, and that more often than not, man is forced into conditions where he must endure the hardest of evils under the guise of outward prosperity (Kant 49).
Kant argued that the peoples of the earth have thus entered in varying degrees into a universal community, and it has developed to the point where a violation of rights in one part of the world is felt everywhere (Kant 107-8). The nature of this system supports the development of a central governmental process, and the absence of this society defines the presence and acceptability of violence and despotism (Kant 102). The entire basis of the structure of government stems not from pockets of terrorist action or collective opposition, but instead from a process by which men gradually move towards greater agreement over their principles, they lead to mutual understanding and peace. And unlike the universal despotism which saps all mans energies and ends in the graveyard of freedom, this peace is created and guaranteed by an equilibrium of forces and a most vigorous rivalry (Kant 114). As a result, competing interests do not necessitate terrorism, but instead allow for the foundation of mankind based on both general...