Understanding the Motives and the Causes of Impulses Into International Relationships - Research Paper Example

The paramount objective of political philosophy is to clarify political concept so that its application is valid and can achieve most of the intended objective for by human nature there is real limitations to human conceptions.As such, not every construct, in this case political construct, can be without limitations as pointed out by Aquinas in his treatise of political philosophy, (Regan, 1986). Being so limited, the constructs often yield less than the expectations. Moreover, it is important to make the most out of the political concept because politics is an inevitable human nature as stated by Aquinas.Politicsis essential in managing the human society and the lives of those who live in it. It is from political conception that a state derives its laws and obligations to govern its citizens.Most states and citizens together look forward to adopting the best political systems that fulfills intended obligations as a legitimate political authority and has its citizens fulfilling their objectives as they have consented. If the conceived political order is faulty, then the consequences of its implementation become unbearable to both the subjects and the ruling elite. The objective of political authority is to protect the rights of its subjects and ensuring stable society. Stable society is that which is free from civil strife because the members of the state share common good and resources in a way that does not infringe into the rights of others. The common good of the public and the limited resources amidst extended desire to for more may pit the public against each other but the political system in place puts due measures to give every individual fair chance. Political authority is also obliged to make international or regional interactions on behalf of the public. The obligation of the citizens on the other hand include adherence to the laws governing the society under the established political authority. The obligations of the members of the public are to the extent that the elements of social contract between each member and the state are preserved. However, determining a valid political concept do deliver this much expectation cannot be the duty of an ordinary man who is vulnerable to misconception and subjective postulations. Most human dialogues are vulnerably subjective and personal interest play a key role.Although this may not be bad, however, it is hard in a society to propagate individual interests in presence of others owing to what Spinoza states that human beings are natural enemies, (McShea, 1968). Common resources found within the society where Aquinas says is home to man put us in some form of competition for the limited resources. In the process of sharing these common resources and with the self-satisfaction tendency of individuals, there is need to put up mechanism to regulate self-centeredness of each individuals and to ensure that natural human rights – right to liberty, to life and to property – do not conflict with the similar rights for others in the same society. This mechanism is what constitutes politics and when it succeeds in its quest to preserve the natural rights of individuals under it while maintaining peaceful coexistence, then we may say that it is a legitimate political authority. Because the public is vulnerable to perpetuating individual interests, which may infringe into the rights of others, conception of political legitimacy so that it fulfills its obligations cannot be left to the public. On this account, legitimate political authority can be entrusted into the hands of philosophers who have the mental ability to conceive the best political order.Legitimacy in politics qualifies the virtue of political institutions and political decisions on laws and policies. Philosophers are believed possess to the highest understanding of principles of nature and canbe trusted to concoct the best political order. The philosophers’ in depth analysis of concepts can evaluate the validity of claims and general discourse. With the limitation of human beings in terms of thinking and diversity in understanding and conception of ideas, philosophers too face the greatest threat of conceiving illegitimate and unethical political systems.Different philosophers have advanced their divergent views about legitimate political authority and about morals and ethics on which political legitimacy roots. The interlocutions of philosophers over variant interpretations of morals or ethics have drawn them against each other. Some philosophersadvocate for natural rights of human beings while others refute. On this account, it is not easy to identify who among them is getting any interpretations, whether on political legitimacy or about morals, it right. This argument is the source of doubt that philosophers can be entrusted with political legitimacy. Different forms of political systems emanate from the conceptions of various philosophers. For example, some advocate for liberalism and others anarchism. Still, others believe democratic system is the best form of government. With thee variant forms of political systems, the public become confused over which order is the best. Each philosopher would advance a near credible justification for his or her theory of the best political order. Political illegitimacy of arises where the philosopher’s interpretation of the best political order is imposed on the public without consent. This is possible considering that philosophers consider themselves as the most knowledgeable group. E2. The state-to-state relations in the global community and the role of international organizations and regional organizations need to be based on mutual consent and benefit for justice to prevail according Plato’s conception of justice, (Dewan, 2000).In order to prove Plato’s claim, there is need find evidence that the modern global society is just and that the contemporary global society perceives justice in the same perspective as Plato, assuming his is the valid interpretation of the meaning of justice. Many other philosophers have diverse interpretations of justice and all of which are evident in the contemporary global society. Implied in this discussion is Thrasymachus’ concept of justice as the act of conforming to the demands and interests of the privileged in the society.Thrasymachus is right by implicitly stating that the society comprises of individuals endowed differently with talents and hence possessions. The ones that are privileged have most of these advantages. Other philosophers acknowledge these differences in endowments of advantages but use this concept to justify the human nature to form a society; that is the need for each other than the need to exploit others. In this same perspective, we consider the countries that make up global communities and global organizations as individuals endowed differently with resources in terms of knowledge and accumulated wealth.At this point, we underline this analogy with Thrasymachus’ concept of justice. According to this concept, the countries with little resources should implement justice by obeying the demands and interests of the more powerful countries.Similarly, for the global organizations that set standards for example the International Organization for Standards (ISO), they should set standards to propagate their interests according to Thrasymachus’ proposition. However, the ISO, UNO and similar international organizations are driven by different philosophy of fighting for the rights of the common individual. The ISO for example, is formed to guarantee safety and provide standards for the production of goods and services that meet requirements of safety and quality. It can be argued that such organizations are based on philosophies such as ethical and moral philosophy advanced by John Stuart Mill. Mill’s moral treatise draws from the principle of utilitarianism that holds that all social, legal and moral rules should confer the happiest life to every human being, (Weithman, 1998). In order to ascertain the validity of Thrasymachus claims, we review his three fundamental claims about justice. He argues that justice is equivalent to the advantage possessed by those who are stronger in the society. In his second statement, he claims that an act of justice, for the less privileged, involves obeying the laws set by the stronger. In conclusion, he argues that justice is the advantage that one individual has over the other. In these arguments, Thrasymachus has implicitly states that individuals may use their advantages over the other selfishly (for personal gains and the expense of others). Expressing this in terms of global community it can be said that superpowers such as the United States are at liberty to use their immense power to rule the rest of the countries by putting standards to which other countries in the world must conform. The best example is the contention over the possession and manufacture of nuclear weapons. The US has the capability of manufacturing these weapons that are regarded as the ultimate war weapons. Any country in possession of such has ability to rule the rest that do not have. The US realizes that other countries are acquiring the nuclear weapon capability and quickly imposes international law to stop the acquisition or development of such weapons. The US understands that any country that will acquire such weapons will get the advantage to win over them or to match their strength in war. This is the reason why US is active in fighting for the disarmament of nuclear weapons. South Korea and Iran are examples of the countries that have faced the US efforts to defend their privilege as superpower. Whether or not Thrasymachus claims are valid is open to discussion and entitled to different opinions. The most important thing is to determine the ultimate implication of the beliefs and from which the statements may be adopted.Inasmuch as justice is the privilege of the stronger there is no limit to this privilege in these statements. This means that if the privileged in the society has absolute authority over the less privileged, and then they are at liberty to do whatever they deem fit their interest. These may include murder and oppression. On this basis, if we put Thrasymachus in the position of the less privileged, and then he will be undermining his own existence. This is the argument that renders Thrasymachus claim that justice is about serving the interest of the stronger in the society. Plato merely rejected this claim citing that justice cannot be the privilege of the stronger in the society and that it implied lack of common good between the poor and the privileged. In normal circumstances, there is usually lack of common good between these social levels. The whole world thrives in injustice with developed economies oppressing developing economies with a goal to protect their (developed) industries. The developed nations expect underdeveloped nations to continue to rely on them for goods and aid and to remain as markets for their goods and services. John Locke would agree with Plato using his philosophy that all men are equal and have right to life, liberty and property. Locke uses his claims to define a legitimate government as a social contract where people conditionally transfer some of their rights to government in order to protect their rights. Even the government is portrayed as a higher authority, it is noted that it shouldnot have any other interest other than protecting the rights of the people. Thrasymachus’ definition implies that government has interests to be obeyed. On the contrary, the laws passed by government must be those laws that protect the rights of the people. Putting Locke’s argument in the context of state-to-state relations, two or more countries may come together to derive benefits from each other. Due to differences in endowments of advantages, the relationship is supposed to complementary instead of exploitative. Most importantly, the relationship should be based on the differences in amounts of resources (advantages) and not involve natural rights because natural rights are inalienable. Natural rights cannot be commoditized and subsequently exchanged, as Hugo Grotius would put it.Hugo claims that rights may be transformed into faculties that human beings possess. This possession allows rights to be commoditized. Once this is done, the possessor is at liberty of trading them for other things that the possessor do not have. This commoditization of rights influenced political development and supreme authority. On these grounds, Hugo argues that every man may enslave himself to any one he prefers for other privileges. He further expresses that once the rights have been transferred, the donor remains with no such right. Therefore, the governed, having entered a social contract of entrusting the government with their rights, remain with very little authority to question.Commoditization and trading of natural rights undermines one’s own existence. For example, is an individual transfers the right to life to a higher authority, and then the donor is seen as one who has committed sacrifice of himself. Countries who relate with each other by transferring right to liberty undermine their existence because they become under control and oppression of the stronger. If we believe that, each country has equal chance of becoming privileged then the implementation of Thrasymachus’ theory means that the entire world is thriving on strained relationships. These are relationships characterized by civil strife and suffering because the oppressed have to disregard the rule of law (which is taken to be the interest of the stronger) in order to earn freedom and gain privilege. Fortunately, these natures of relationships are evident in the global community as seen in the tension between US and China economies. E3. Catholic bishops issued a statement requiring believers to fulfill their duty of paying religious taxes otherwise; they do not qualify for sacraments, baptisms and other important ceremonies. In this statement, they asserted that believers could not make it to heaven and enjoy the good that comes with it unless they pay taxes.The church exploits the catholic faithful by masquerading behind the government who registers the followers for tax payment. The government collects taxes before sharing with the Catholic Church. The article in the associated press claims that all the followers from diverse religious backgrounds, Jews, Catholics and Protestants are surcharged about nine percent of their total income.Religious institutions depended on the tax revenues to maintain their diminishing congregations in a dynamic Christian world. This act amounts to forcing believers to pay tax to sustain church. The church, which ought to be where Christians expect to be freed from their burdens turn out to be a place for exploitation.Due to this exploitation, a significant number of believers opt out of the Catholic Church. They make this decision to survive the increasingly tough economic times. In his letter addressing the individuals the claim to be evangelicals, Erasmus denounces the indulgence of priests and the tyranny of pontiffs as being against the meaning of prayers, fasting and masses. He remarks that the hypocrisy of the evangelicals makes them complacent to these acts and, therefore, destroys the society, (Copenhaver & Schmitt, 1992). He adds that the gospel of the church do not serve its purpose of reclaiming individuals lost to sinful acts as is the expectation. The church thrives in deceptions and plunder. The scandal of tax puts Catholic Church in a delicate position. It negates the teaching of the church baptism, Holy Communion and other sacred services are free and holy. In real sense, the believers have to buy them. The remark of the bishops also implicitly states that believers have to pay them to make it to heaven. It makes going to heaven a question of whether one can afford the cost and not whether one can attain the highest morals.In reaction to the decisions made by followers, the church administration issues threat stating thatthose who decline paying the taxes or denounce their faith will face consequences. Erasmus also criticizes the Catholic Church in his treatise of expression of freedom of the will. He says human beings have freedom of will and choice. Therefore, it is not right for the church to impose sanctions on believers who intend to quit church due to economic challenges. According to Erasmus, the church would do better by helping out the church members with the financial problems. It is not in order that the church cannot help its followers who fund it through the taxes, (Lustig, 1991). Commenting on religious tolerance, Erasmus states that the church should forebear disputes arising from within the church because it helps foster unity and understanding that is usually lost during acrimonious exchange between opposing factions. In fact, Erasmus would prefer Italy’s approach to the issue of tax. Italy has made the tax contribution voluntary. He would also support other churches that have made membership voluntary. Arguments between divergent views would help the church flourish since it the only way the truth can be furthered. Erasmus criticism of the trends in Catholic Church is supported by Lorenzo Valla who opposed Donation of Constantine that formed the basis of secular rule of the pope as medieval forgery (Finnis, 2001). E4. The circumstance that leads to a state’s decision to opt for self-defense must be a cause that is external to the state and unnatural. Being unnatural mean that it is causes by another state or individual larger enough to expose the entire state to war and infringement of human rights. The state decision to ensure self-defense that may expose its public to human rights infringements come in several ways. First, a state may decide to pursue diplomatic solutions in order to avert getting into war. Depending on the nature of conflict and the intention of the enemy country, that is pursing war. A country may pursue peaceful conflict resolution to protect its citizens from the effects of war, but the enemy state may have intention of unleashing war and suffering onto the state that prefers diplomatic solutions. This way, the besieged stage remains exposed to war and infringement of human rights despite considering what may be perceived as ethical decision to see diplomatic solutions. This situation invokes the need to analyze the interpretation of morality. Firstly, the state has the authoritygiven by its citizens to make decision on their behalf. These decisions include international relations and engagements. These relations should only be those directed towards the good of the public.The question of whether it is right or wrong in light of moral and ethical principles for the state to involve in war depends on the initial impulse that leads to the nation’s decision to involve in war. When the state’s intention to involve in war is initially deliberate and having understood the implications of such action, then it may be considered that the state has breached its moral and ethical principles. When a nation’s involvement in war is initiated by forceful prodding by enemy country and diplomatic efforts having been pursued and have failed because of stubbornness of the enemy nation, then the state’s decision to protect its citizens by way of war can be justified according to moral and ethical principles. There is no moral breach when an individual dies or gets injured while fighting in his or her own defense. Similarly, a state that has been unwillingly drawn into war has a moral obligation to defend herself before the enemy, (Lyons, 1994). However, in some cases, we can be influenced by our natural propensity to defend oneself, without basis on morals but out of the need to prove to the enemy that we can match their force.This influence of human ego on the decisions we make is akin to what Humestates as the natural impulses of human beings to make wrong decisions that are not justified. If the state declares war out of the desire to express its prowess, and in effect exposes its citizens to human rights infringement, then it becomes capable by moral principles.The role of morality and ethics in this case is, therefore, to guide the conscience of the state in making the right decision when faced with war, (Jeanson, 1981). John Stuart Mills explain this concept when analyses responsibility and punishment in his account of ethics. In this matter he states punishment is valid if the perpetrator had an option to act otherwise.In the context of the state’s decision to engage in war, it implies that the state must first exploit all the avenues leading to peaceful resolution of the conflict that has the potential of war in it. Deliberate decision to involve in war without evaluation of concepts is liable to punishment, (Mill, 1963-91). Mills further states that an individual’s action is subject to the external influences. Considering the state as an individual with ability to act in response to external influences, the state will respond to external attacks in a manner that is influenced by its character. A state’s character reflects the individual character of its authority, which is in turn influence by the belief of the citizens.If the beliefs are based on moral principles, and then the state’s action would respond to the external influence in a way that reduces occurrence of human rights infringement. Human rights infringement is considered to be a deliberate effort or an action initiated by deliberate decision to derive human rights, (Berger, 1984). Short answer S1. There is a wealth of information drawn from the analyses by different philosophers.I would borrow concepts from the philosophies to decipher what drives international relations or the motives. International relations are certainly induced by the human nature to live in a society and depend on each other to exchange advantages with the aim of fulfilling needs that they do not possess. Understanding the motives and the causes of impulses into international relationships makes it easy to enter international agreements that are not bias and oppressive. Some international relations based on philosophies of Thrasymachus that justice is the advantage owned by the privileged. Such relations are oppressive and undermining. Reference Berger, F. (1984). Happiness, Justice, and freedom: The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Copenhaver, B., & Schmitt, C. (1992). Renaissance Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crisp, R. (1997). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge. Dewan, L. (2000). St. Thomas, John Finnis, and the Political Good. Thomist, 337-374. Finnis, J. (2001). Natural Law, God, religion, and Human Fulfilment. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 3-36. Jeanson, F. (1981). Sartre and the Problem of Morality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Lustig, A. (1991). Natural Law, propoerty,and Justice: The general Justification of Property in aquinas and Locke,. Journal of Religious Ethics, 119-149. Lyons, D. (1994). Rights, Welfare, and Mill's Morals Theory. London: Oxford University Press. McShea, R. (1968). The Political Philosophy of Spinoza. New York: Columbia University. Mill, J. S. (1963-91). The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Toronto: John M. Robinson. Regan, R. (1986). The Human Person and Organized Society: Aquinas.” In The Moral Dimensions of Politics. New Yor: Oxford University Press. Weithman, P. (1998). Complementary and Equality in the Political Thought of Thomas Aquinas: Theoogical studies. Read More