Framers of realist theory consider it a fallacy if someone not consider what is desirable and what is possible in arena of foreign relations. Realists rely heavily on the fact about that politics and power are very much related and in the same context they tend to separate politics from others spheres of influence such as economics.
History shows no exact co relation between quality of motives and quality of foreign relations. There are many instances when decisions were not driven by interests but rather by time and place. Morgenthau cites the example of Winston Churchill, who despite being a man in pursuit of personal power, was a successful prime minister and foreign policy emerge under his cabinet was of high political quality. Foreign relations is derived by the man's ability to do rational decisions when it come to national interest despite what his personal preferences and political sympathies are but it is strictly prohibited to search for clue of foreign policy exclusively in the motives of statesman. So political realism considers a rational foreign policy to be a good foreign policy. Realists argues that the end result matter the most and those end results depend on the decisions which were need to be taken for the collective good of nation. That is the reason realists try to separate ethics from politics. For them, states who have a collectively responsibility for the betterment of their people, so they need to take actions irrespective of their morality. Lincoln once said, " if the end brings me all right, what is said against me won't amount any thing. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing that I was right won't make any difference."
History shows no exact co relation between quality of motives and quality of foreign relations. There are many instances when decisions were not driven by interests but rather by time and place. Morgenthau cites the example of Winston Churchill, who despite being a man in pursuit of personal power, was a successful prime minister and foreign policy emerge under his cabinet was of high political quality. Foreign relations is derived by the man's ability to do rational decisions when it come to national interest despite what his personal preferences and political sympathies are but it is strictly prohibited to search for clue of foreign policy exclusively in the motives of statesman. So political realism considers a rational foreign policy to be a good foreign policy. Realists argues that the end result matter the most and those end results depend on the decisions which were need to be taken for the collective good of nation. That is the reason realists try to separate ethics from politics. For them, states who have a collectively responsibility for the betterment of their people, so they need to take actions irrespective of their morality. Lincoln once said, " if the end brings me all right, what is said against me won't amount any thing. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing that I was right won't make any difference."
The ends justify the means, eh? Well realism is amoral in this sense, as everything revolves around interests and the ability to maximize power.
ReplyDelete