Morganthau is one of the most influential theorists when it
comes to the Realist perspective in International Relations. In his book
Politics Among Nations, he starts of by distinguishing between Realism and
Idealism, the two schools of thought in International Relations. While one
school “ believes that a rational and moral political order, derived from
universally valid abstract principles, can be achieved here and now, The other school believes that the world,
imperfect as it is from the
rational point of view, is the result of forces inherent-in
human nature, to improve the world one must work with-those forces, not against
them. We in this chapter focus on the Realist point of view as showcased to us
by Morganthau.
Morganthau in this chapter furthermore addresses 6
principles of political realism. The fourth principle deals with morals and
that was the one that sparked my interest. According to the fourth principle,
“political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action”.
However, the moral principles relevant to a particular incident must be
historicized and contextualized and then dealt with. Therefore, it can be seen
that ethics is incorporated into political realism through the measurement of
effects of the political consequences of a particular action. While we assume
that Realist school of thought focuses on how human beings are selfish in
nature and how for them, survival is the utmost priority. This inclusion of
ethics slightly drifts away from the stringent criteria of Realists focusing
only on the human nature. Morals for humans and state are different. While
humans can blatantly claim and sacrifice themselves in name of morals, states
have other priorities.
“There can be no political morality without prudence.”
Within this fourth principle, this line shows that for Realists, in the end,
political consequences trump morality and they will put their consequences
first before making some morally upright or correct decisions. So even though the concept of ethics is present, the idea is still secondary to good political decisions.
It could be argued that morality is a subjective topic since many actions considered to be universally moral by some, may not hold the same value in the minds of others. Even topics such as war and killing can be thought of subjectively so perhaps the term good political decisions is a contradiction in itself.
ReplyDeleteGood post and I agree with Aizaz. In the realm of politics, it is best to recognize the relative nature of morality and that political decisions are based on interests - at least according to realists - that may or may not be reflective of a particular moral perspective.
ReplyDelete