An Article On Morality And Foreign Policy

Summary: In chapter 1 of Moral Politics talks about that politics is about your own world view. The political division between republican and democrat is based on morality. Morality is based on the type of family backgrounds you have or family model you have such as strict father and nurturing father. And these models explain what “common sense” you have in mind, which you may not even aware of. Chapter two talks about the personal worldview problem for american politics, it will bring the questions that either you're more conservative or liberal. Both sides have their own views. It talks about why do conservatives think that morality should be their agenda. Liberals also have a paradoxical position even they also hold a moral position on

When problems arise people step up and take responsibility. Like in the quote from Elie Wiesel, human suffering really is everyone’s problem. In war and times of conflict, America has intervened because they believe that it is their problem to try and solve. This is evident through speeches in World War I, propaganda in World War II, letters during Vietnam, biographies concerning the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and speeches from the War on Terror.

Throughout the course of history, the United States has remained consistent with its national interest by taking many different actions in foreign policy. There have been both immediate and long term results of these actions. Foreign policy is the United States policy that defines how we deal with other countries economically and politically. It is made by congress, the president, and the people. Some of the motivations for United States foreign policy are national security, economics, and idealism. The United States entry into World War I in 1917 and the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1964 and the both had great impact on the United States.

The United Sates planned to stay neutral dunning both World War I and World War II. When President Woodrow Wilson took office he had little experience handling foreign affairs, he believed that America had a moral duty to stay at peace during the outbreak of World War I unless it affected domestic affairs. I disagree with President’s Woodrow decision to practice Isolationism and moral diplomacy, because staying neutral did not help improve the world’s condition during wartime. There was a moral reason for World War I. By staying neutral America seemed to have weak leadership. By not commenting on the assassination of Franz Ferdinand or getting involved in the war America didn’t set the moral standard that the moral diplomacy sought to aim

The United States has been a super power for decades, and since America has always involved themselves in other countries' problems. Instead of isolationism, the country has practiced getting involved. Since the Monroe Presidency, America has been named the World's police force. Dispelling anarchists, and stopping coos, the united states portrays itself as the world protector. Since Monroe, some Americans have felt that isolation is the way to go, and most feel that it is our right to offer assistance. Two recent incidents, Operation Desert Storm and The War in Bosnia have allowed the United States to show off it's strength, both on the military and political level. It has also given the chance for America to evaluate it's foreign policy,

Foreign policy is how one nation deals with many other nations. The book talks about Ronald Regan trying to create foreign policy and then here you have congress like a bunch of ants floating on a log down river each ant thinking there in charge. Foreign policy from the way “How Congress Works’” says is set up by the president and not really. Having congress get involved makes foreign policy way more complicated then needed. Harry Truman was one man who was asked a question. A random person wanted to know who created foreign policy? His answer was that he did. Now this leads to a important example of foreign policy. This leads to John F. Kennedy and we all know what major foreign policy deal he had to deal with. It was the Cuban missile crisis.

Nations laws and morals can be easily influenced by groups or factors. And the United States is definitely not an exception for this. The War Hawks influenced U.S foreign policy when they pushed for war, allied with France, attempted to move to Britain territory.

Though the United States was the military power of the world prior to World War II, its foreign policy was one of detachment. The government was determined not to get involved in other countries affairs barring unusual circumstances. A World War provided big enough means to become involved, as many Americans became enraged with the military ambitions of Japan and Germany.

James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.

American foreign policy has gone through many changes during our 200 years as an independent nation; our position as a global power has obligated us to participate in world affairs, even when public opinion has been unsupportive. After World War 2 we were only rivaled by the Soviet Union as a superpower; our policy at the time was to establish a righteous world order while simultaneously protecting that order against threats that could tear it down (i.e.: communism). After the end of the cold war the U.S was indecisive on what type of foreign policy to establish for itself, since American diplomacy before the end of the Cold War was centered on fighting the spread of communism. The answer to this question came within the academic article I

Nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, not answering the call for help in Rwanda, allowing Germany to take over Czechoslovakia, supporting the creation of the state of Israel, giving out loans (with interest) to developing countries, and the creation of the United Nations are all forms of international interference and cooperation amongst states. When looking at these examples and many more, it begs the question, does morality play a role in international affairs of a state? George Kennan, a prominent Skeptic, would argue that in international politics “other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical, must be allowed to prevail.”

In their book American Foreign Policy since World War 2, Steven W. Hook, and John Spanier take a historical look at American foreign policy. Since its independence, all through to the start of the 20th century, the United States had a policy of detachment. This was rooted in the believe that Europe, the only other meaningful powerful in the world in the 18th and 19th century, had intrinsic issues related to feudism that kept the continent in a constant state of war (Hook & Spanier, 2015). The U.S on its part was far away from Europe and had a unique chance to chart a different course, one free from the troubles of Europe. As a democracy free from the class systems of Europe and hence maintain peace and stability (Hook & Spanier, 2015). To maintain this peace and stability, it was in the United States interests to maintain detachment from Europe. In fact, Monroe wrote that Europe and its flawed system was evil and America should strive as much as possible to stay away from it (Hook & Spanier, 2015). However, in the 20th century, this policy of detachment was put to the test when the United States was drawn into the first and second world wars by external factors. This led the United States to get more engaged in global affairs. The idea behind engagement was to promote the ideals of democracy which, the U.S believed were the pillars of peace, as well as to protect itself from aggressors like Japan in the Second World War. After the

According to Mary Midgley, moral isolationism "consists in simply denying that we can never understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgements about it” (Midgley, 322). Midgley argues that moral isolationism is incorrect and it is illogical. She argues this by saying that it is possible for outsiders to judge foreign cultures, but moral isolationism is illogical because it excludes any kind of judgment. She also exposes that judgment is tied to respect and moral isolationism excludes barriers such as intermixing cultures. I believe that judgment of other cultures is crucial to the existence of moral values. Without judgment, individuals would not have their own opinions because judgment goes hand in hand with opinion. However, when one is judging another culture, they should be aware that their judgment should be respectful and take moral relativism into retrospect. We have to be ethical and fully understand that cultures vary when criticizing another culture. If we do not understand Ruth Benedict’s belief of moral relativism, then we are not lawful to judge another culture.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

So the theory suggests that because democracies externalise their interstate norms, they resolve disputes with other states like them in a peaceful way. Hence domestic inner-state policies influence their foreign policies. However, this proclamation is disputed by C. Layne who argues that the ‘crux’ of this theory is that if the assumption that democracies promote their peaceful inner-state norms and beliefs, then they shouldn’t ever threaten other democracies, especially not in a crisis. I will use the case study of the ‘Trent affair’ to provide evidence of how war was avoided. I will argue that in this case, war was avoided not because of the domestic pacific influence on foreign policy but because of other strategic reasons.