Political Judgment In Politics

In every day life, we face many situations that require a moral decision. We have to decide what is right and what is wrong? Not always is this an easy task thus, it seems important to analyze how we make our moral decisions. I will start with an analysis of how we make decisions in general

A moral decision is a choice made based on a person’s ethics, beliefs, character, values and judgement. If a store clerk gives you too much change after you purchase something, do you tell them? If your two best friends are in trouble and you can only save one, who do you help? Whether in your regular everyday life, or in extreme and unfortunate circumstances, moral decisions occur often and challenge what you believe in and stand for as a person. Merna Summer’s “The Skating Party”, puts Uncle Nathan in a situation where he has to make an influential decision where it is not totally clear which is the correct choice. The decision he makes might not have been the best one for the future, and it left him filled with lasting feelings of guilt and grief.

A person may base his or her political beliefs off of what is said in media or from what one is accustomed to, but various questions and concerns regarding what ideas one supports go into picking the “right” political party. For example, children are often taught to pick one side and in this environment, parents often want their

Policies are tools that keep the peace, the economy and that allow a country to function. The Mytilenian Debate takes place after the revolt of Mytilene, the council immediately decided in sentencing the entire male population to death and to enslave the women and children yet, “there was a sudden change of feeling…to destroy not only the guilty, but the entire population of a state. In Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War the role of policies can affect the course of war and the state. It is best seen in The Mytilenian debate where the parliament of Athens discusses if the sentence they proposed was truly right. In this debate we have two men Cleon, and Diodotus who discuss their view on the sentence and discuss the delicacy policies

In today’s society and the Chrysalids, people are too afraid to make changes because changes can cause trouble. A quote by Albert Einstein says “The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot change without changing our thinking.” This quote describes the world in real life and the Chrysalids. This world has been created because of us, humans. As time goes on, individuals start to pursue a better lifestyle and more freedom. In order to do these things, human beings need to make changes in the world. The thinking of people is so unpleasant sometimes that worse things can occur. In both societies, the thinking of people is so careless that changes frighten them.

Realism or political realism prioritizes national interests and security concerns in addition to moral ideology and social reconstruction. The term is often associated with political power. The term is often associated with political power. Realism believes that the state is the main actor of the most important in determining the direction of a country. This means there is no term mentioned as an International Organization but merely the State. Realism also believes the State is deciding on the future of the people. In connection with it, the state is certainly confident that whatever actions are correct and appropriate, even if it is done by means

Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument

The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories.

Whether or not Walzer’s arguments are effective is obviously a subjective question; realists would argue no, but Walzer would say yes. I feel they are effective, because they expose the unusual and faulty logic of the realists as a base and shameful way of justifying the wrongs they choose to engage in. While the realists try to make broad, sweeping statements that sound like they could be logical but that in fact are merely bandwagon-type statements designed to sound good without proving their point, Walzer pointedly identifies all of the faulty logic in their arguments, their attempts at covering up their own inhumanity with shallow excuses, and the real truth about their justifications that they

Realism establishes a separation between politics and ethics in order to understand and comprehend international events. Realists don’t oppose morality to politics, nor power to law, but rather oppose the utopian peaceful society to the nature of society. Realists are attuned to the idea that the international system is anarchic and that serious threats emerge all the time, requiring states to secure resources for survival. This involves periodic use of force; security represents the unique and main goal of foreign policy.

Though the international system today shares many aspects of realism, neoliberalism, constructivism, and marxism, neoliberalism is the predominant principles under which the international system operates. With the formation of several influential international governmental organizations (IGOs), the world has become a much safer place. Though neoliberal ideas draw from realism in the fact that the international system is in anarchy, neoliberalism dictates that the world is in a form of structured anarchy, perpetuated by the IGOs that governments partake in. By strengthening webs of interdependence, countries find the ability to interact amicably, and build up reliance upon one another. As countries

Therefore, it provides differences between the status quo power and progressive states, while maintaining and emphasizing the importance of government at the same time. In contrary, Structural Realism is more concerned on ensuring their survival, by seeking and maintaining that power. Structural Realism would treat states as they are black boxes: they are assumed to be alike (Mearsheimer). Furthermore, Classical Realism and Structural Realism differ in their views of interconnection in international politics, fundamentally what causes the observed outcomes in relations among states. Classical Realists believe that the international world is one of interacting states, and causes run in one direction. Structural Realists on the other hand, assume a more reasonable method, therefore in order to study interacting states, they follow the way of distinguishing between unit-level and structural causes and

distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable behavior (Resnik, 2015). In other words, ethics assists in determining whether a decision is right or wrong when given a choice. As a matter of course, decision-making is first predisposed by personal ethic that is constructed on personal experience and conscience (Fritzsche & Oz, 2007)

Idealists, however, expand on what constitutes an actor to include both the state and people. Not only do the principles of Idealism assert that the state and people should be considered actors, in fact, both they must be viewed as actors. Actors have interests; while realists such as Machiavelli insist the state is the only unit of analysis necessary in international politics, idealists argue that just as states have interests, people in government have interests as well. Therefore, Realism and Idealism begin their assessment of actors from two different perspectives, however, both schools of thought go on to identify many characteristics of actors which are largely similar.

Karl Marx’s legacy in social theory does not lie in his predictions of future utopias but it rather lies in his analyses of the contradictions, as well as the workings, of capitalism. Within contemporary sociology, this tradition is very much alive in world-systems analysis, it is a perspective that has been developed by Immanuel Wallerstein in the 1970’s. The Modern World-Systems (MWS) theory is a macroscale and multidisciplinary approach to world history, as well as, social change. The MWS theory emphasizes the world system, as opposed to nation states, as the primary unit of social analysis, but it is not the sole unit of social analysis. According to Wallerstein, the modern nation state lies in a broad political, economic and legal framework