2 statement. Waltz argues that the morality of prudence represents the conflict between order and survival. He argues that moral attitudes become more dominant when the consequences of political failure become more urgent. Waltz argues that the states must be concerned first of all with their stable position in the system rather than to maximize its power. The prudence can only be reasonable in a system of balance of power because this balance should be maintained by great powers.
It is important to first define realism the context of the argument, as the theory that seeks to explain or account for conflict. Schroeder’s assertion that realism is a good theory for explaining war, but not peace, can certainly be applied in the context of this question. John Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism” describes an international system that offers Great Powers little choice other than to seek the subversion of other powers (even those which pose no direct threat) “if they want to maximise their own odds of survival”. He argues that the construction of the international system forces powers to act offensively towards other states from a position of fear. With that said, traditional realists, such as Cold War American policy advisor
In fact, the main drive of realism in international relations theory is to highlight the anarchic nature of international politics. Classical realists who are also known as traditional realists, held the view that international politics is an amoral exercise which is blighted by war and conflict because of human nature. Thomas Hobbes (1985) put forth the view that man operated in a state of nature where no law existed above him to prevent him from acting immorally or according to a specified set of rules. This state of nature shaped human nature which according to Hobbes was characterized by “competition, diffidence and glory” amongst humans. (Hobbes, 1985, p.185) For classical realists, the characteristics of human nature were put into practice in international politics where every state is functions to garner safety and as there is no power to keep states moral, they indulge in competition which often results in “war of all against all”.
Great powers are primed for offense. They will defend balance of power when looming change favors another state but will undermine the balance when direction of change is in its favor. Specifically in World War I, the struggle for power was exacerbated by the three major assumptions of the security dilemma: Absence of central authority (anarchy), States all have offensive military capability, and states can never be certain about other states’ intentions. The result is fear, self-help, and power maximization, and so, the security dilemma ensued and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War I. Thus, the most persuasive theoretical explanation of the outbreak of World War I is the cascading security
Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible. Strawson 's whole purpose of writing the article is to change anyone 's mind who says that we should be responsible for the way we are and what we do as a result of the way we are. He believes we are lacking freedom and control of doing so. He argues that if we do something for a reason, that is how we are, so we must be responsible.
Realism is defined by Morgenthau as a school of thought that believes that human nature produces anarchy and that one must work within the system of anarchy in order to succeed on the international scale. Anarchy is the lack of order or hierarchy in a system and results in uncertainty of the roles and intentions of other actors. Morgenthau also defines Realism as a theory based in historical precedent, as opposed to theory or postulation, that uses case studies to predict future events. Power’s role in Realism, according to Morgenthau, is merely a sort of international equalizer with which nations can understand one another’s motivations. He places the interest of the state above any moral code and justifies any action necessary to ensure the survival of the state.
The Kant’s caution is that the possession of power inevitably corrupts the free judgment of reason, stands as a classic example of this view. It is important to grasp the notion of genealogy, as it has become crucial to many postmodern perspectives in International Relations. Genealogy is a style of historical thought which exposes and registers the significance of power–knowledge relations. Genealogy affirms a perspective which denies the capacity to identify origins and meanings in history objectively. A genealogical approach is anti-essentialist in orientation, affirming the idea that all knowledge is situated in a particular time and place and issues from a particular perspective.
The great disdain towards Woodrow Wilson, founder of idealist strand of American foreign policy, clearly put forward the ideology of Mr. Kissinger: “Moral prescriptions without concern for equilibrium... tend towards either crusades or an impotent policy tempting challenge”. Kissinger’s viewfinder, Realpolitik, advocated that we were unwisely swayed by the idealism in the past. The roots of the World War I, the conflict in the modern Middle East, the Arab Spring and America’s increasing ambivalent role on world stage, were offered a vision through his realpolitik lens. With his emphasis on balance of power, linkage and triangular diplomacy and strong regards for the works and ideologies of the likes of such as Richelieu and Teddy Roosevelt, clearly divulge his stand. The second is the balance of power as a system for managing relations between states.
Let us examine the realist and constructivist approach to anarchy. Realism focuses on the theory self preservation and that rules are created by governments to protect its people which would also help prevent conflict. However international politics can not be credited with this. (Lebow, 2007) Waltz argued that the continued lack of ‘world government’ leads to violence between states. It seems to be the common belief among realists that because there is no clear authority that governs states on a global level, thats where anarchy exists; violence is always a constant possibility as each state strives for self preservation.
They touch upon the consequences, but the true core of discord that influences the interpretation of Kant 's ideas stems from the dissociation in the understanding of human nature. When interpreting Kant, scholars already have a formed vision of human nature that affects their way of reading the Perpetual Peace. View on human nature is a veritable crux, a starting point of the distinction within the liberal tradition. Optimistic assumptions about human goodness and progress underpin the idea of easy political transformation endorsing military intervention to spread democracy. Contrarily, if one believes in a "cautious if not dark, human nature" but remains optimistic about man 's ability to evolve through reason ,then "individual reason and political institutions develop slowly" , through a gradual evolution thus ,accordingly, military intervention cannot "hasten democratic governance" .