FINAL PAPER REPORT 1

Final Paper Report

Student Name

Institution

Course Name

Instructor Name

Date
FINAL PAPER REPORT 2

Comparative Analysis Paper

In his book Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant offers a detailed proposal for achieving a

society free from the threat of war (Simpson, 2019). In contrast, Seyla Benhabib’s book The

Right of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens focuses on the rights of aliens and residents in a

nation-state. While both authors are concerned with the issue of peace, their approaches are quite

different. Kant’s approach is mainly philosophical, while Benhabib’s is mainly legal. For Kant,

the key to achieving perpetual peace is for nations to adopt a republican form of government. He

believes this will lead to a more peaceful society by promoting the public good over private

interests (Simpson, 2019). Republics are also more likely to form alliances with each other,

which will further reduce the likelihood of war.

On the other hand, Benhabib does not believe that republicanism is the only way to

achieve peace. She argues that aliens and residents should be given full rights and citizenship in

a nation-state. She believes this will promote social cohesion and reduce the likelihood of

conflict. There are some similarities between the two approaches. Both Kant and Benhabib

believe peace is possible if the right government is in place. They also both emphasize the

importance of cooperation between different groups. However, there are also some significant

differences between the two authors. Kant’s approach is more idealistic, while Benhabib’s is

more realistic. Kant also focuses on the role of government, while Benhabib focuses on the rights

of individuals (Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018). Overall, Kant’s book Perpetual Peace offers a more

comprehensive and detailed proposal for achieving a society free from the threat of war

(Simpson, 2019). However, Benhabib’s book The Right of Others: Aliens, Residents, and

Citizens provides a more realistic and practical approach to the issue of peace. This essay will
FINAL PAPER REPORT 3

dwell more on the analysis of Benhabib’s book since I find it more realistic and exciting than the

idealistic approach of Immanuel Kant. 

In theory, the right to equal worth renders people equal. It brings in rights claimed

universally by humanity, and these claims are most often made for those who live under a system

of democracy or capitalist social relations. This is where universal human rights come from and

why they have been used not only as a means to make claims on those who do not possess such

capabilities but also as a means of justifying imperialism. Benhabib examines the language of

universal human rights and the different, but often confused, meanings between the terms’

citizen,’ ‘alien,’ or ‘other.’ Benhabib compares her writing against Hannah Arendt's and

immigration debates within American politics (Robitzsch, 2019). She examines how human

rights discourse is used to justify imperialism. The main point she is trying to make with her

argument is that not all people are included when human rights are used in the way they are

today.

The right to equal worth is fundamental in a democracy or any state. When people are

given equality, they are no longer seen as inferior. In a democratic country, as with many other

states around the world, rights are created not only for those who live under the laws of that state

but also for those who do not. If a person is a resident, they are not treated equally with equal

worth. This means that the law does not protect residents the same way it does those who live

within its borders. The term “alien” is often used to describe people who are not citizens or legal

residents of that state. This can offer a confusing message regarding how one should act because

they were not created equal. If a person is a legal resident in the United States, they are treated as

a citizen. They have equal rights and privileges under the law. However, the right to equal worth
FINAL PAPER REPORT 4

does not apply to everyone equally. In this regard, Immanuel Kant argues that people cannot be

held to the same standards of human behavior if they are not created equally (Simpson, 2019).

Benhabib uses Arendt’s book “The Human Condition” to examine the idea of otherness

(Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018). Within the book's first part, Arendt argues against those who would

equate humanity with lawfulness, which is what Kant tries to explain in his work (Robitzsch,

2019). Most people do not want to be equal because they believe that people are more like

animals than humans. When a person is human and not human, the difference is legal. Who is the

law, and what does it affect them? The word “alien,” in Arendt’s book, refers to those who are

not citizens of the United States (Robitzsch, 2019). This means that living in America or any

other country does not make you a citizen. Some people do not have equal rights under the law.

For example, an illegal immigrant has no protection under the law, while a legal one does. The

word “alien” is used to describe these people. Benhabib claims that this term begins to change

the idea of human rights because people are no longer considered human beings in the same way

(Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018). This is because citizenship depends on legal residency and the right to

equal worth. Therefore, the argument goes that aliens do not have equal worth because they are

not citizens from birth.

All states create laws that describe them as being democratic or socialist. This shows that

the state has chosen to give rights, regardless of whether or not the people in that state are equal.

If a person is a resident of, for example, a democratic country, they do not have rights, but if they

are an alien, they have. Benhabib argues that this can become problematic when those allowed to

live within certain borders are thought of as aliens and treated as such by everyone else in this

state (Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018). This is how imperialism works: creating a right within a territory

and then an irrational fear toward those who do not have that right. The people who do not share
FINAL PAPER REPORT 5

the same rights as others within a state are seen as aliens and justified in killing them because

they are seen as outsiders. This is the main point Benhabib makes when she says that no one

should see themselves or others as outsiders (Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018).

Benhabib’s writing can be looked at from many different angles. For one, she looks at

how human rights are used to justify imperialism. The idea that a right can be created and then

used to justify imperialism is essential to her article. Benhabib argues that the problem with this

argument is not that some people are seen as aliens or outsiders but that no one should feel as if

they are an outsider within their state (Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018). Benhabib argues for human

rights to be shared by all of humanity and not created for those who do not have them. According

to Immanuel Kant’s book, “Perpetual Peace, " people are equal and rational (Simpson, 2019).

This means that a divorce or death can force people to take responsibility for their actions. Those

who are rational are required by their conscience to act without the influence of another person’s

will. In Kant’s work, individuals should be considered equal under the law, and all people should

be treated equally no matter where they come from (Simpson, 2019). Kant says this is because

treating one another with dignity and respect is human.

Benhabib’s article is full of complex ideas, the most complicated being the right to equal

worth. It is very tempting to get lost in all these different ideas but what she is trying to

accomplish with this article is clear. Benhabib wants us to see that not all people are treated

equally under a system of democracy or within a state that says it supports human rights (Ozcelik

& Xidias, 2018). She argues that one should not see themselves as an outsider and that there

should be no such thing as aliens. Benhabib argues that this is a very difficult idea because the

idea of being an alien gives imperialism its power (Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018). An imperial state

can define who its subjects and aliens are. One’s citizenship is determined by a state’s definition
FINAL PAPER REPORT 6

of who should be included in the group of people treated as equals within that state. Therefore,

those who like the idea of human rights for all humanity should see themselves and others as

equal under the law and human rights. This means treating all people with dignity and respect no

matter where they come from or how they were created. Benhabib’s argument can be examined

from many different perspectives. Some might be interested in the idea of imperialism and how it

has been justified by the state. Benhabib argues that citizens within a state can create laws

allowing people to go into other lands and take what they want. She says this is how imperialism

works and states that no person should see themselves as alien or an outsiders.

Benhabib states in her article that “the rights of aliens, like the rights of women, are those

we struggle for, but cannot fully achieve because their recognition remains bound up with more

basic struggles for recognition.” (Benhabib, 2001) is an example of how she uses the right to an

equal worth to argue against imperialism. She suggests that imperialism and its effects would

end if we shared rights equally. If a country’s citizens were treated as equals with no right to be

treated as outsiders, imperialism would die because there would no longer be a need to protect

those seen as outsiders. Benhabib argues for human rights to be shared by all humans because

she believes that if you do not see yourself as an outsider, then you are incapable of thinking as if

you do (Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018). This would also mean that people will no longer think in

irrational ways to justify imperialism and racism.

This article is full of very complicated ideas, but the most complicated one is the idea of

the right to equal worth. It was very tempting to get lost in all these different ideas but what she

is trying to accomplish with this article is clear. Benhabib wants us to see that not all people are

treated equally under a system of democracy or within a state that says it supports human rights

(Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018). She argues that one should not see themselves as an outsider and that
FINAL PAPER REPORT 7

there should be no such thing as aliens. Benhabib argues that this is a very difficult idea because

the idea of being an alien gives imperialism its power (Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018).

In conclusion, Benhabib argues that no person or alien should be seen as a mortal enemy

(Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018). She suggests that this is the main problem with imperialism and its

effects: the very idea of being an outsider, which in turn leads to irrational fears and beliefs.

Benhabib tries to make a case for human rights by arguing that we should not see these people as

aliens but instead take care of them (Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018). She takes a very philosophical

approach in her article, which is not surprising given that she has a background in philosophy.

Even though some of the concepts she uses in this article can be difficult to understand, it is

essential to try to understand her ideas and how they pertain to imperialism. Benhabib’s article

contains many different perspectives, but she does a fantastic job analyzing the problem and

coming up with an argument for equality. Immanuel Kant and Hanna Arendt have also had

essential arguments in regard to imperialism and human rights, or the belief that there is a right

to be treated as an outsider (Robitzsch, 2019). These articles are full of very complicated ideas,

but they are essential to read if one wants to start thinking about imperialism. These articles were

extremely helpful in understanding the problem and how Benhabib tries to bring us one step

closer to claiming our rights for equality (Ozcelik & Xidias, 2018).
FINAL PAPER REPORT 8

References

Ozcelik, B., & Xidias, J. (2018). An Analysis of Seyla Benhabib's The Rights of Others: Aliens,

Residents and Citizens. Macat

Library. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781912284870/analysis-

seyla-benhabib-rights-others-burcu-ozcelik

Robitzsch, J. M. (2019). The Genesis of Hannah Arendt’s Conception of Human Rights. The

Southern Journal of Philosophy, 57(2), 240-

258. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sjp.12318

Simpson, S. (2019). Making liberal use of Kant? Democratic peace theory and Perpetual

Peace. International Relations, 33(1), 109–

128. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0047117818811463