Do Classical Realists Show That There is no Place for Morality in International Politics - Essay Example

DO ICAL REALISTS SHOW THAT THERE IS NO PLACE FOR MORALITY IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS? No) (Lecturer) Classical realists are usually skeptical when it comes to the application of morality subject in international politics this can create an impression to classical realist to claim that morality in normal circumstances has no place completely n international politics or on the other hand that there exist some tension between demands related to morality as well as the requirements of triumphant political exploit or that states in different part of the world possess their own morality which seem to be distinct from customary morality that is well understood, or that morality, to some instance, if any, is simply used instrumentally as a way of justifying states own conduct. This is a clear case where an ethical norm is rejected among states (Baehr et al, 1999). This is a discussion which relates to an incident of 416 B.C.E when Athens decided to forcefully invaded Melos Island. The Athenians envoys therefore, present one choice to Melians, either to surrender or face total destruction, however, the Melians on the same note were asked not to bother appealing for justice but critically consider their survival. From the envoys massage, it is now clear that critical decision about justice are not made anywhere but with human discussions only if both parties involved are under the same consumption but if one side is above the other, then weak one has no choice but to accept. Parties being “under equal consumption” demonstrate that they are under good force of the law that automatically subjects them to a stable lawgiving authority of which by this time any authority above states was not in existence (Donnelly, 2000). The Athenians argue that the society at the time was in a lawless situation of international anarchy, by understanding, the only right that remains was the right championed by the stronger who is able to dominate the weak. Their viewpoint is to equate right to mighty as they exclude any considerations related to justice The international relations realists insists on the yardsticks imposed on the politics in many cases by the nature and ways of human beings egoistic behaviors, especially with the absence of strong international governments. With the accumulation of these factors overtime result into conflicts-based paradigm within the international relations which comprise of key actors who are states, many states consider the issue of power and security to be their main agenda but little consideration to morality (Dunne, Kurki & Smith, 2013). The human nature gives the platform for the classical political realism. To the face of realist, they classify human beings to be inherent egoistic by nature since they are interested on how to pursue self interest which clouds their moral principles. Classical realists in today’s neorealist, assume that with the absence of government, it literally means total anarchy, which is the key determinate for the outcome of international politics (Lebow, 2003). The absence of common rule-making as well as good enforcing authority exposes the international arena to relatively self-help system where each state operate independently alone for survival, define its own interest freely and pursue them, therefore, the state of anarchy results to a situation where power take control of shaping interstate relations. However, as the realists envision global situation as anarchic, they similarly view security being a central issue. For the states to attain security, they have a duty to increase power and at the same time involve themselves in power-balancing with an aim of deterring potential aggressors. They believe that wars are fought with an aim of making sure that any nation is prevented from unnecessary competition especially from acquiring military capability to enable them become stronger over the dominant one, therefore, power dominance is relevant (Mapel, & Nardin, 2002). Up to today there is no prove that human being have changed from classical antiquity days, and because of that nature, realists argue that, it is the root of egoistic nature of humans, therefore, they inclined towards immorality (Harbour, 1998). According to Machiaveli, politics “it must needs be taken for granted that all men are wicked and that they will always give vent to the malignity that is in their minds when opportunity offers” (1970: Book I, ch. 3). Renown realists like Reinhold Niebuhr (1944: 19) together with Hans Morgenthau (1946: 202) view the argument Machiaveli puts forward as largely descriptive, Machiaveli himself satisfied with it terming other argument to be mere assumptions or risky although all of them commonly agree to egoistic nature and passion as well as self-interest to be the key drivers of international politics, they believe essentially not to depend on humans especially having faith in human nature, because such faith will be termed as heresy which in return is very destructive (Low, 2007). A number of realists argue that, men are not only motivated by egoism but other desires apart from power which is not the key component of international politics, therefore, Niebuhr combine his harsh doctrine that focus on the original sin explaining that human beings are not always egoistic by birth (1944: 7), he continue to propose for a proper look into human nature which champion for justice in all levels of the society. The classical realist and their theory on international politics will try as much as possible to avoid any other popular fallacy which involves foreign affairs policies. This includes the head of state’s philosophy and political sympathies which endeavor to deduce the former far away from the latter (Morgenthau & Thompson, 2006). The statesman, especially under modern-day condition, may get used to the habit of always presenting their state foreign policies in form of or in line with their philosophy as well as political sympathies with an aim of becoming more popular and support, yet they are supposed to attend to their official duty as statesmen so that they can present national interest not their own personal wish across the globe. Political realism as it stands does not require or condone any kind of indifference when it comes to political ideals together with moral principle but instead require sharp destination among the desirable and that which is possible desirable everywhere at any given time and place (James, 2012) It is well understood that not all foreign policy championed has been following national objectives on an unemotional platform as is ought to be. The key impediment of personality, prejudice as well as subjective preference is due to the weakness in intellect though they are supposed to deflect foreign policies away from the rational course particularly where it is carried out under the conditions that are limited to democracy control, the aim of marshalling popular emotion in order to get support of foreign policy will always weaken the shrewdness of foreign policy on its own (Pangle, & Ahrensdorf, 1999). Therefore, foreign policy’s aim of rationality must stand and achieve its objectives away from irrational elements whose aim is to divert the goals of foreign policy. International political realism on the other hand also contains other elements apart from theoretical, there is normative element, the rational elements are the one responsible for the making of the reality intelligible. International political realism offer theoretical construct used for rational foreign policy, it consider the better good of rational foreign policy to be the best because it minimizes any possible risks and maximizes associated benefits therefore, complying with the moral precepts and the political requirements (Smith, 1999).).\ Conclusion States and the statesmen have the moral duty to responsible adhere to the moral duty of the society. The human beings egoistic behaviors, especially with the absence of strong international governments must be observed closely and any aggressive nations must prevented from unnecessary competition especially from acquiring military capability to enable them become stronger over the dominant one, therefore, power dominance is relevant for international peace and harmony. Political realism as it stands does not require or condone any kind of indifference when it comes to political ideals together with moral principle but instead require sharp destination among the desirable, therefore, statesmen must champion for what is good for the entire nation not their own interests Reference BAEHR, P. R., CASTERMANS-HOLLEMAN, M. C., HOOF, G. J. H. V., & SMITH, J. (1999). The role of the nation-state in the 21st century: human rights, international organisations and foreign policy : essays in honour of Peter Baehr. The Hague, Kluwer Law International. DONNELLY, J. (2000). Realism and international relations. Cambridge, [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. DUNNE, T., KURKI, M., & SMITH, S. (2013). International relations theories. Oxford, Oxford University Press. LEBOW, R. N. (2003). The tragic vision of politics: ethics, interests, and orders. New York, Cambridge University Press. MAPEL, D. R., & NARDIN, T. (2002). Traditions of international ethics. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. LOW, P. (2007). Interstate relations in classical Greece: morality and power. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. JAMES, A. (2012). Fairness in practice: a social contract for a global economy. Oxford [etc.], Oxford University Press. PANGLE, T. L., & AHRENSDORF, P. J. (1999). Justice among nations: on the moral basis of power and peace. Lawrence, Kan, Univ. Press of Kansas. SMITH, S. (1999). International theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. MORGENTHAU, H. J., & THOMPSON, K. W. (2006). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. Boston [u.a.], McGraw-Hill Higher Education. HARBOUR, F. V. (1998). Thinking about international ethics: Moral theory and cases from American foreign policy. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press. Read More