Throughout history, philosophers have questioned about human nature. Are humans originally good? Are we evil by nature? Are humans born in a blank state, tabula rasa as John Lock referred to it? Many theories have been produced that try to explain human behavior. Those theories can be categorized under two main ideologies: determinism, and existentialism. Determinism is the idea that humans do not have free-well, and that all their decisions are determined either by the nature of human species or by the nurturing humans receive from the environment. The first type of deterministic theories argue in favor of human nature; namely, humans are predetermined by their genetics and natural evolution to act in a certain way. These theories tend to …show more content…
The advocates of such theories claim that humans are born in a blank state, then they are filled with knowledge, beliefs, and nutrition upon which their future decisions will be based. In other words, we are the products of our environments. On the other hand, existentialism proposes that humans have complete free-well, and thus human behavior cannot be expected at any point. Like nurture theories, existentialism claims that we are born in a tabula rasa state as well, but in contrast it asserts that it is up to humans to decide the essence of their being. Based on those conflicting notions about human behavior, there has never been a grand theory that could fully explain the past behavior and precisely expect the future behavior of humans. Consequently, three major theories about international relations were born: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. I believe that each theory has some validity to a certain extent about collective human behavior; however, I think realism is the closest theory that best describes human behavior on the global …show more content…
First, a flourishing economy can never exist without security and protection from a higher authority. Only a strong state with a strong military can stop the aggression of some humans on the rights of others. Jared Diamond in his famous book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, argues that the strong militaries with advanced weapons were among the main factors that enabled the Europeans to dominate most of the world during the imperial era. Moreover, military power will not only protect economies but will allow them to flourish either by violent or non-violent means. For example, the European imperial powers enriched their economies through the extraction of raw resources from the colonies and then selling them in the origin country and the colonies’ markets as well. A more specific example is the British East India Company that had its own army to help protect and market their goods in India. Second, military power comes before ideological power for two reasons. Unfamiliar ideologies have been suppressed and killed either by oppressive governments or by the common society that usually resist any change in the status quo. This has been the norm throughout history and is still the norm in many countries today. The last century allowed a relative free sharing of ideas and opinions, however. Accordingly, most of today’s ideologies, including
“Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs”(Information Philosopher, 2015). It refers to the claim that, at any moment or place in time, there is only one possible future for the whole universe. However, the concept of determinism often comes into question when looking into whether human beings possess free will. Free Will can be defined as “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion” (Defence of Reason, 2014). The very definition of the terms determinism and free will appear to be conflicting however, many philosophical thinkers
For Mearsheimer, this is the very basis of realistic thinking and in turn equates international order to anarchy. 2. Great powers maintain and continue to acquire militaristic capabilities in order to eradicate the idea of weakness and establish sovereignty over lesser powers. 3. A country can never be sure of another country’s motive hence each party is left
A Modern Day Imperial Power Presently, the presence of injustice, disorder, and poverty are all problems demanding a need for an active imperial power to solve them. Throughout the past two centuries, America has emerged as a capable modern day imperial power. As an imperial power, America has the ability to spread its economic, cultural and military influence internationally, majority of which benefits foreign nations. Likewise, imperialism is a widespread concept amongst existing and rising imperial powers due to the beneficial impacts it has on everyone—for example, economical, political, military, growth and cultural benefits. America’s ascent in strength and power was driven and motivated this imperialistic interest for everyone, having grown to become one of the most strongest forces in the world, it is a moral responsibility for America to aid less fortunate nations and people.
Compatibilists think that determinism is actually required to act freely, because if there were no causes and effects for a person to be connected to, their actions would become random, chaotic, and unpredictable and therefore their actions are not truly “free” since such
Determinism, free will and moral responsibility (1681 words) Table of contents: Introduction. Blatchford’s view on determinism, free will, and moral responsibility. Schlick’s determinism, freedom and responsibility. Hospers’s position.
Over the years, many theories have been developed to study the human personality. Some of the notable theories are psychoanalytic theory, trait theory, humanistic theory and behavioural theory. In this assignment, we have chosen to compare and contrast the psychoanalytic and humanistic theories. Psychoanalytic Theory
The second question with the problem with humans is “what are the innate predispositions of men?” (Becker, 1971, p. 116). The third question with the problem with humans is “what types of personality are most valued” (Becker, 1971, p. 116). The fourth question with the problem with humans is “what are the modes of relating to others” (Becker, 1971, p. 116).
The understanding that some people are good or bad widespread all over the world.” The evil comes from human history and continue until today” and even today this statement has existed. Moreover, when people want to explain why people do some evil acts, the discussion often end with words like “people initially are born evil”. However, some other people argued that people are born good. Because of these many critics has debates such as: are people born bad, good or just like naked board without any morality.
A realist theory would suggest that states are the only relevant actors in international politics. Realists believe that since there is no central authority to govern these
Idealism and Realism are two strongly opposed views of foreign policy. At the core of this opposition is the issue of power and security in politics. 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.
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. Conflicts and wars, Similarities and differences between Realism and Liberalism: Both Liberalism and Realism believes that there is no world government that can prevent countries to go to war on one another. For both theories military power is important and both Realism and Liberalism can understand that countries can use military power to get what they need or want. Also, both theories are conscious that without military
Instead Waltz sets out to prove his international relations theory in a scientific manner, while choosing to ignore the normative concerns of classical and neoclassical realism (Jackson and Sørensen, 2003: 84). The theory of neorealism – or structural realism – focuses on structures (and on the interacting units, the constants and the changes of the system) as the determinative powers within the scope of international relations (main principle of those being that of anarchy). Jackson and Sørensen (2003: 84) also point out that actors are viewed
Classical realism and structural realism are both theories of International Relations, therefore huge differences are noticed in between those two. The main difference lies in the motivation to power, which is seen differently by both theories. Classical realism is concentrated in the desire of power- influence, control and dominance as basic to human nature. Whereas, structural realism is focused on the international system anarchic structure and how the great powers behave. Classical realists believe that power is related to human nature, thus their analysis of individuals and states is similar.
The international relations schools of thought known as Realism and Idealism identify specific and similar characteristics of actors in the conceptual development of their theories. While many of these characteristics can be generalized as being synonymous with the two theories, both theories make a separate distinction in what specifically constitutes an actor. In Realism, the term “actor” refers directly and solely to the state: a combination of government, leaders, decision-makers, etc, that act as a unitary entity to promote the interests of the state. 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.