All's Fair In Love And War
The Political Realist's Argument
Is war ever the right or wrong thing to do? Political Realists claim that war is just and permissible only when it is in the best interest of a state. Further, they argue morality has no place in determining the justifiability of war. In considering the legitimacy of war, I will first analyze one main argument in support of 'Political Realism', after which I will critique the argument, which I provided in support of political realism.
Political Realists clearly state that war is acceptable once it is in the state's best interest to do so, and once embroiled in a war, a nation must employ all methods to ensure that victory is the end result (Morgenthau 14). They believe that "war is an intractable part of an anarchical world system ("War"). And that it ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in terms of national self-interest. While political realism is an intricate and highly developed doctrine, Political Realists assert that its core propositions center on a strong rejection of applying moral concepts to the conduct of international relations (Ibid).
Political realists denounce the idea of applying morality when discussing the justifiability of war for two main reasons. Firstly, political realists believe that only a superior and legitimate international authoritative body can impose a moral system upon all nations (Lauleta 2). Secondly, realists assert that there is no overriding international authority that enforces a common code of rules that apply to all nation states (Ibid) Therefore, by virtue of accepting these two main premises; realists contend that we should not use morality as a factor in considering the legitimacy of war.
In arguing th...
... middle of paper ...
... We can clearly see evidence of this whereby countries abide by international laws. Therefore, it is safe to say that we do not need a world government to determine universal morality because other world organizations are capable of establishing common codes of conduct and laws.
We have explored two counter arguments. Firstly, a common sense of morality among states does not require authority as a common basic morality, despite cultural diversity, is innate in every human being. Secondly, states' participation in international organizations ensures that a common set of rules determining the justifiability of war can be applied to all states. Therefore, when states co-operate without a universal governmental body, they can arrive at some degree of commonality where international law is concerned. Therefore, in conclusion, we can evaluate war based on moral issues.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
Commonly, Rosa Park’s arrests for refusing to yield her seat on a bus for a White man is a popular misconception of being the primary stimulant that kindled the uproar of the historical boycott of Montgomery’s buses known today. Contrarily, unprecedented, racially provoked violence, and discriminative and segregated events prior to Parks’ conviction motivated leaders to organize their communities for the challenge to break barriers of government’s disregards to Negro’s rights and race equality. Parks was the catalyst that spread to the community for the immediate need for change. Despite, Negroes limited sources, and assumptions they were impressionable and unintelligent; nevertheless, their stance made an economical impact to public transportation, crippled businesses’ revenue, and pressured the government to arbitrate laws against segregation. Within the short period of Parks’ arrest, Negroes were able to brainstorm various strategies that led to the success of the boycott, which included but not limited to the following: proper marketing, assertive leaders, and implementing a civil plan.
When it first started in 1922 it had the name Jungsturm, which was changed to Hitlerjugend by 1926. Many smaller sections divided up the organization. Bund Deutscher Mädel was a league for girls, NS-Schulerbund was for Nazi students, and Duetshes Jugvolk was for German children from age ten to fourteen (Gutman, pg. 677). Hitler’s main goal for the Hitler Youth was to create a group of future party members. He also wanted enough supporters to be ready when he overthrew the Weimar Republic (Heyes, pg. 13). His focus was on making the children better by making them stereotypical Aryans. That involved many types of athletics in the Hitler Youth and educating the children with Nazi ideals (Koch). In 1932, a law was introduced to ban the organization because the violence could not be controlled anymore, but the ban only lasted a few months. As the Hitler Youth continued to become popular, other youth groups in Germany were destroyed. By 1933, only a few Catholic groups were left (Heyes, pg. 25). Almost every German boy from age ten to eighteen was a member by the start of the war (Sax). In 1936, membership was made mandatory to all children (Heyes, pg.
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
Through Maleficent’s tale in 2014, we finally get to see the backstory of how she came to be. Only by betrayal did she turn evil, and only by hate did she force her curse upon Aurora. We get to see Maleficent’s good side, her heart towards what she loves and is willing to die to protect. In the beginning of this movie she stands up to fight for her land, the other fairies, creatures, and towards the end she saves the one thing she had started off hating, Aurora. I think we see how justified Maleficent was in her actions in this film, she had a right to be mad, hurt, and devastated when her own wings were taken from her. It was once she realized her love towards Aurora, she realized her mistakes. I believe Disney shows King Stefan as the evil villain in this 2014 version. He betrays the woman he loved to take over power and wealth. Stefan thought of himself and how he could rise to power, and not how he would be hurting
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
7) Vernadsky, George. A History of Russia: Fourth Edition, Completely Revised. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
When looking at normative theories of politics, the main distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this essay the term community shall refer to political communities, or more specifically, states. It is important to note that these political communities have been defined territorially, and not necessarily by culture, although this is taken for granted to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is different, and therefore should act accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone. Furthermore, communities should have no obligations to other political communities or any sort of international law. Contrastingly, Cosmopolitans say that there should be an overriding universal moral standard to which all states (or communities) should adhere. If a state is infringing on the rights of the individual or humanity, then intervention is appropriate and just. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
In realism, states are seen as rational, unitary actors. Realists assume that the actions of a state are representative of the entire state’s population, disregarding political parties, individuals, or domestic conflict within the state (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2010). Any action a state takes is in an effort to pursue national interest. National interest is “the interest of a state overall (as opposed to particular political parties or factions within the state)” (qtd. in Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2010, p. 355). If a state is rational, they are capable of performing cost-benefit analysis by weighing the cost against the benefit of each action. This assumes that all states have complete information when making choices (Goldstein & Pe...