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. 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.
Hume falls on the passion side of the spectrum: he was an empiricist who believed that individuals are completely driven by passion and emotion rather than reason. Kant, on the other hand, believed that everything we do derives from reason. Descartes falls somewhere between the two. He was a more mild rationalist who acknowledged that passion and reason both play a role in constructing an individual self. Through discussing the main points of these three philosophers’ theories, I will prove that passion and reason are both defining factors that influence our decision making, but the relevance of each factor is a subjective opinion in the case of these three men.
This made it so that any dissenting citizens of this country were actually sinning against God’s decision. This system is not entirely bad as it provides equilibrium for a society that shares the same religion to exist with most people abiding by the same sort of rules, supporting harmony. However, Locke had said that,“Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent no one can be put of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.” (269) This idea seeks to distance Locke’s ideal society against this monarchy by saying that not just most but all people deserve the right to be in power. If someone does interpret the Bible differently and sees that this idea of divine right is a fallacy, then according to Locke, they are being governed without consent and unjustly. Locke believed that the “majority rule” should make the decisions in any free society as this would allow for continuing peace through the majority’s desires being sated.
In Machiavelli 's perspective, rulers ignored tradition with a specific end goal to hold force, and men were normally awful animals that did not wilfully adjust to reason. Machiavelli says that a Prince must be savage for no man can be trusted. splitting among the general population results in a weaker state , and it will be in the long run ate up by a more weaker one. when that happens the ruler is the one nonentity of the state; his hobbies to keep power and request are straight-forward fixed to the hobbies of the state, Machiavelli says that in light of the fact that the Prince 's advantage are the preeminent of the state, he might do everything with a specific end goal to look after force, to forestall issue in the state. his explanation behind the irreverent behavior of a prince.
As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars. For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars ”. In all of this, Augustine is not far from and is, in fact, probably drawing upon the ideas of Cicero and the author of Deuteronomy. He goes further than either of them, however, in his condemnation of war itself and in his refusal to allow that the aggressor may be just. For Augustine, war is never a good but only a lesser of evils, and the one who causes the war is always unjust.
Just cause refers to the idea that war must be just in that it has to constitute something more than say simply recapturing something that has been taken or as a punishment for doing something wrong (Just War Theory). Essentially, innocent lives must be in danger in order for war to be the just cause of action. With this in mind, comparative justice takes into account the idea that
The two principles are principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity. By following the Principle of Universalizability, you have to universalize the maxim. The universalized maxim would be, everyone always breaks the law when doing so it allows him/her to do much more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal of maximizing public safety. However, by universalizing the maxim we are specifically violating the first violation of categorical imperatives, which refers to violation by contradiction. Torture is against the law, therefore torturing the man would break the law.
This suggest that “the evilness of men, or their improper behaviour, leads to war” (Waltz, 2001, p.39). Waltz’s second image that he proposes is that the inner administration of the state component is essential for us to understand its tendency towards war. The image has two beliefs that state that for survival in central conflict or civil war, a state must endorse an entity that is homogenously unified. The third image that Waltz highlights the anarchy that exists in the international system. He proposes that as states have such interests that will all too often clash with the interest of other states, e.g.
Nevertheless, Hobbes says that men are naturally individualistic and (political) society benefit to avoid war of every man against every man. Hobbes holds that the natural condition of men is “condition of war”. Therefore, creating commonwealth is the only method of preventing conflict between people. Hobbes disagrees the point of Aristotle (about state is natural) and Hobbes holds that creating state is not natural; it is a voluntary agreement or
The preamble to UNESCO's constitution says: "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed." That is, if one wishes to have peace of mind, one must also construct safeguards of peace in one's own mind. The world cannot have peace until nations and people begin and unite to reduce their selfish desires for more and more material possessions and ardour, give up their racial arrogance and indifference, and eliminate their idiocy for worldly power and control. Material wealth alone cannot bring peace and happiness in the minds of people as well as in the society. The key to real and lasting peace lies in "mental disarmaments"- disarming the mind from all kinds of "poisonous" impairments such as greed, hatred, jealousy, hatred, egotism, etc.