Session 7: Another Great Debate
America's Next Top Moral
Hans Morgenthau, the patron saint of realism, sparks another conversation of the realism vs idealism debate through the lens of American foreign policy. He deconstructs US foreign policy by making a realistic argument about what he deems as a facade of humanitarianism and peace. He goes one step further by saying that virtually all foreign policy is based on the realist doctrine of the balance of power.
Morgenthau’s
tone seems very exasperated as he yet again points out his frustration with the
naïveté of the utopian position which denies or overlooks the existence of the
balance of power. He says it is improper practice to analyze American foreign
policy based on a few statements by statesmen and politicians because those are
usually just empty gestures. He says that the realist approach to foreign
policy is plainly obvious and uses, funnily enough, the earliest version of the
classic “Compare with Hitler” hyperbole. That is to say that he thinks that intentions do not matter in the face of the effects of foreign policy, by claiming that if this was not the case; even Hitler could be seen as a humanitarian.
Realism and idealism, he says, isn't a debate between morality vs immorality. It is the debate between one kind of morality and another kind of morality which I completely agree with given the fact that states should not be bound to the same moral principles as individuals and it is for the good of their constituents that they are self interested. Morgenthau here makes what I believe to be a very necessary distinction of what should be and what has to be done. Morality isn't at stake when we talk about foreign policy. Policy is dictated by necessity, not charity.
Realism and idealism, he says, isn't a debate between morality vs immorality. It is the debate between one kind of morality and another kind of morality which I completely agree with given the fact that states should not be bound to the same moral principles as individuals and it is for the good of their constituents that they are self interested. Morgenthau here makes what I believe to be a very necessary distinction of what should be and what has to be done. Morality isn't at stake when we talk about foreign policy. Policy is dictated by necessity, not charity.
This seems to be case with most of the actions of the developed world. Taking America for example, their constitution, the importance of which is likened to holy scripture, talks about liberty, freedom and equality for all. Looking at their actions and foreign policy, that hardly seems to be the case. Double standards, or lack of any standards, seems to have dogged policy makers at Washington since the days of the great war.
ReplyDeleteI think if you look at the Constitution in detail, you would find that it is more of a guarantee of internal rights rather than external. The supremacy clause of the Constitution establishes its principles as Scripture in a sense, but the founding fathers never held too much regard for the protection of everyone's rights. The Constitution essentially states that blacks are 3/5 humans so there is not much of a moral precedent for them to stand on in the first place.
DeleteThis is true, but of course they eventually amended this and there was that little thing called the Civil War...
DeleteI support the notion of separating morals from policy; sometimes it is necessary to take certain decisions which some might deem immoral, however, they may be for the greater good. Who decides what's immoral anyway?
ReplyDeleteI'd like to concur there. Morality in the international system is too relative to stamp down anyways, and it has to vary from situation to situation. Summing up everything under one blanket term is a classic example of physics envy in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt appears everyone is in agreement that morality has no place in international relations, especially since morals are relative. Does this then mean that realism makes sense and is a useful theoretical framework to understand the world?
ReplyDelete