LEIBNIZ’S DILEMMA OF THE ETHICS OF CONQUEST: THE CONFLICT BETWEEN HIS JUST WAR ETHICS AND THE EGYPT PLAN

This article examines the context surrounding Leibniz’s Egypt Plan and evaluates whether it aligns with his philosophical views on the criteria for just wars. To achieve these aims, the study is divided into five sections. Following an introduction to the political atmosphere of the era when the plan was conceived, the first section discusses the moral justification of the plan, assessing whether it endorses war on ethically sound grounds. The second section evaluates the plan through the lens of proportionality, asserting that a war is just if the harm caused is less than the harm it seeks to prevent. The third section explores why Leibniz did not consider war as a last resort, emphasizing that it should be an option only after all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. The fourth section examines the intentions behind just wars, which should prioritize the common good over personal or political ambitions. The final section offers an in-depth analysis of whether Leibniz’s plan aligns with divine providence, particularly its adherence to the moral order established by the Christian God, to mitigate both intrareligious and interreligious conflicts. The article ultimately argues that Leibniz’s Egypt Plan is inconsistent with his own philosophical views on just war, highlighting inherent contradictions within his proposals in the context of just war theory.