The Skeptic Theory of Morality in International Relations

1410 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: universal declaration of human rights and un charter

Introduction:

Nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, not answering the call for help in Rwanda, allowing Germany to take over Czechoslovakia, supporting the creation of the state of Israel, giving out loans (with interest) to developing countries, and the creation of the United Nations are all forms of international interference and cooperation amongst states. When looking at these examples and many more, it begs the question, does morality play a role in international affairs of a state? George Kennan, a prominent Skeptic, would argue that in international politics “other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical, must be allowed to prevail.”

In this essay, I will first present the Skeptic argument that morality either plays no role or gives way to prudential reasons that serve the self interest of the state. During that I will give a brief explanation of Skepticism as a theory of morality in international relations. Following that I will explore ethics in the Morality of States and Cosmopolitan schools of thought in comparison to Skepticism.

Skepticism:

Skepticism, often known as realism, is one of the oldest perspectives to observe ethics in international relations. The basic premise of international skepticism is that states are selfish actors and when necessary, a state should act in its self-interested over any moral proclamation. (Forde, 8) This belief is derived from the ancient belief that humans are naturally evil, evolving into the more modern form stating that humans are naturally selfish actors. (Donnelly, 20)

To compare states with individuals, you open up the gates for questions, like how can a state be compared to an individual, and if they are comparable, then don’t we see examples of ind...

... middle of paper ...

...alition of states risk war, which would not be the common good of the earth.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Skeptics hold a firm belief that morality plays little to no role of foreign policy, especially when it comes in conflict with the states self interest. Due to the anarchic system of international politics, there is no enforcing any state to comply to international law or morality. However other theories help highlight key phenomena that may lead to an international morality not founded on self interest. Morality of States core belief of state sovereignty and non-interference has definitely come to play (borders had hardly grown since the creation of the Westfalian state). And cosmopolitans have demonstrated an ideal path for human rights and peace where we can see possibilities already like the formation of the United Nations and the spread of democracy.

Show More
Related

  • The Key Differences Between Realists, Morality of State Theorists, and Cosmopolitans

    1550 Words  | 4 Pages

    George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system.

    Read More

  • The State of Nature is a State of War

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...s to act on the basis of power and self-interest. This is false because states actually have the ability to freely choose between alternative courses of actions. War is not the only option. As Walzer says, rarely is a state credibly threatened with extinction, this means that states are free in a very clear sense, to choose to act on the basis of moral commitments and conceptions of justice as well as upon considerations of their own national interests. This can be seen in practice in democratic regimes where both national interests and moral commitments are based upon the moral beliefs of a nation’s people. Since war is an intentional human activity, states choose whether or not to take the dramatic step of embarking into war. Therefore, any intentional human activity is one that is subjected to moral scrutiny and humans are more complex than the realist picture.

    Read More

  • Resolution 36/103 of the UN General Assembly (1981)

    1742 Words  | 4 Pages

    The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...

    Read More

  • Ambassador Power's Speech Analysis

    279 Words  | 1 Pages

    During Ambassador Power’s speech, she discusses her beliefs about Russia as a threat to the international community and the United States by prominently expressing thoughts that are similar with the liberal theoretical tradition, additionally, due to intellectual pluralism, Ambassador Power briefly expresses thoughts that are similar to the theoretical tradition of realism. There are four basic assumptions that realism and liberalism share—states live in an international system based on anarchy, states seek power, states are rational actors, and states are the most born actors. However, these rational acting states have varying views of what anarchy is and they act in different ways to attain such anarchy. In this paper, I will explain how

    Read More

  • Democratic Peace Theory, is it real?

    1078 Words  | 3 Pages

    The theory of democratic peace is a classical idea that has been cited repeatedly by scholars. While Kant was not a darling of democracy, he wrote about perpetual peace, which he describes would only happen if states achieve a form of civil constitution. To him, perpetual peace exists when a regime honors property owned by citizens and when citizens live equally being the subjects based on a representative government that is built on the premise of separation of powers. The theory of democratic peace is therefore built on the proposition that some negative elements of government can be disabled to make a nation thrive in an international arena. This majorly entails elements of war. This idea is strengthened by the fact that relations between states in an international setting are not provoked by benefits of one nation being a burden to another. Instead, these relations are based on a mutual benefit and togetherness. If that proposition is anything to go by, it loses it meaning when states behave contrary to what they suggest on an international platform. The internal structures of a state are paramount to such an atmosphere and when they lead a different style of relationship with other states, the theory of perpetual peace fails to hold any water. The behavior of states can only be explained...

    Read More

  • The Just War Doctrine

    976 Words  | 2 Pages

    The principles of just war are useful and practical for the world of today. However, as globalization increases and continues to hone in on states’ affairs, the principle may begin to lose efficiency. If states continue to do their best to abide by international and set a standard for other states, the possibility could result where all states will begin to do so—anything is theoretically possible. The proficiency of the just war doctrine has been has been proving beneficial in keeping states safe, and protecting states’ sovereignty. The just war theory is presently proving beneficial, though through globalization it could become damaging.

    Read More

  • Neo-Realism and Liberalism: Comparing These Two Different Frameworks Used in International Relations

    1232 Words  | 3 Pages

    In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.

    Read More

  • Realism And Liberalism Research Paper

    1108 Words  | 3 Pages

    In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.

    Read More

  • Understanding International Relations

    1517 Words  | 4 Pages

    To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.

    Read More

  • Communitarianism vs. Cosmopolitanism

    1136 Words  | 3 Pages

    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)

    Read More

  • Self-Interest on the International Stage

    610 Words  | 2 Pages

    A nation’s actions on the world stage can be played in many ways. Whether the role being played is unwanted meddler in other nations’ affairs, supplier of money and aid to countries in despair, or just an ordinary nation trying to keep all of its proverbial ducks in a row, the motivation that drives the plot of international relations is self-interest. Whether the setting is these United States or across the world in the People’s Republic of China, in the theocratic republic of Iran or the military controlled Central African Republic, is doesn’t pay to give something for nothing.

    Read More

  • International Relations

    2631 Words  | 6 Pages

    The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).

    Read More

  • Political Realism

    2261 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Realist Approach to International Relations

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.

    Read More

  • Realism International Relations

    956 Words  | 2 Pages

    The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.

    Read More

More about The Skeptic Theory of Morality in International Relations

Open Document