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

  • 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

  • Moral Idealism In Foreign Policy

    1758 Words  | 4 Pages

    Foreign policy is a very common topic today. Foreign policy is the strategy or process when dealing with other nations. There are two different types of foreign policy used, which are Moral Idealism and Political Realism. They both have their own way of running external things from their country, the best one being Moral Idealism. Moral Idealism takes into consideration the Moral of the citizens of the country or countries that are affected by the policy, another way to put it is “The greatest goods for the greatest numbers.”

    Read More

  • Problems with the Maastricht Treaty and its Goal to Unify Europe

    626 Words  | 2 Pages

    which infers working towards a goal in harmony. The Maastricht Treaty sounds like an ideal proposal on paper, but in reality it can't work. In order to adopt the treaty several countries will have to make sacrifices. The sacrificial. Nobody likes to make sacrifices.

    Read More

  • The cold war

    2042 Words  | 5 Pages

    Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2013), International Relations Since 1945: A global History. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Read More

  • The Realism of Kenneth Waltz

    2320 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • fog of war

    1454 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.

    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

  • The Strengths Of Classical Realism In International Relations

    1600 Words  | 4 Pages

    Classical realism originates from the ancient times of the Greek empires. This theory in international relations has dominated the sphere and the conception of world politics for centuries. Classical realists such as Morgenthau and Thucydides outline different factors in explaining politics at all levels and emphasize that politics is described throughout the theory of classical realism. Like every theory in international relations, classical realism has strengths and weaknesses that define its impact in the international level. In our current age of diplomacy, classical realism is not a common theory in current international politics. Although it is not as relevant as it has been in the past, there is potential for classical

    Read More

  • Realism and Constructivism

    1481 Words  | 3 Pages

    The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.

    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

  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    1830 Words  | 4 Pages

    It is therefore no longer is it credible for a state to turn its back on international law, alleging a bias towards European values and influence. All that humankind now requires to bring about the elusive, but eternal, dream of perpetual peace is a global citizenship based on a strong commitment to principles of equity and democracy grounded in civil society.

    Read More

  • International System Essay

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.

    Read More

  • International Relations Essay

    1095 Words  | 3 Pages

    The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).

    Read More

More about The Skeptic Theory of Morality in International Relations

Open Document