The, Relativism, And Relativism

Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.

The foreign policy of the United States can be defined as a labyrinth- a set of complex intricacies which either lack comprehension or are characterized by meticulous thought. Established during a period of ideological warfare and domestic hysteria, it is evident the Truman Doctrine was conceived with a disregard for the future stability of American international affairs. Engulfed within a period marked by massive power struggles and distorted accusations, the Truman Doctrine may appear minimal in regard to alterations of the United States international attitude. However, the Doctrine acted as a catalyst for the shift in America’s foreign policy objectives and vision. It is clear the Truman Doctrine produced detrimental consequences in regard to the international policy of the United States, stability of foreign countries, and continuing repercussions in the modern day.

suggests that on a global scale, unique societies fail to share the same evaluative language when

Despite mankind’s inventiveness and interior capacities for almost every wonderful field of study, it wholly compromises its principles and remains dishonest. More than seven billion people compose humanity’s seemingly intangible collective, each one of whom is an individual with a separate set of principles and identities. However, most of mankind is dedicated to the uniform desire to advance their own interests. Moral compromise and the inherited sense of self-interest have prevented any true harmonic pattern in society, and have caused problems that exist and dominate us at the present time. If society wholly refused to compromise its principles for the sake of self-interest, there would be a major change in our world affairs. However, self-indulgence

Throughout post-WWII history, the United States has taken on the role of the world’s police. They feel the obligation to ensure the spread of their ideals for selfish and self-righteous reasons. John Mueller and Odd Arne Westad share their arguments as to what the United States’ actions have produced during the Cold War in Eastern Europe, Korea, and Vietnam and during the post-9/11 period in the Afghanistan and Iraq. While some of their arguments are valid, others are flawed.

The objective of ‘the U.S. foreign policy’ course is to develop personal ability for applying IR theories to the U.S. foreign policy. Then, students will be able to understand the direction as well as the grounds of the U.S. foreign policy. To achieve this objective, I will discuss major the theoretical issues through the brief history of the U.S. foreign policy until the Cold War. After that, I will examine the challenges which the U.S. confronts.

Ethics are the product of a society’s culture so it is natural there will be different responses to similar ethical scenarios. Beekum, Stedam, and Yamamura (2003) suggest these differing conclusions will lead to conflict where one side perceives the outcome is ethical whereas the other does not. Another possible outcome is that one side may not even see a decision even being morally significant. Global organizations have the additional challenge when operating within a multi-national environment of recognizing cultural differences while maintaining a core moral and ethical foundation.

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.”

Absolutism and relativism are polar opposites in the study of morality. Relativism, in short, is something morally open to interpretation. The context of the situation determines the right or wrong thing to do. A common ethical issue is the idea of killing being justifiable. If someone were to fire a gun at me and I were also armed I would find it difficult not to return fire. Now even this scenario is highly subjective. Who is shooting at me? Why are they shooting at me? Do they know they are shooting at me? Friendly Fire? All these questions make killing in self defense such a relative concept. I believe this because my reaction to being fired upon is “relative to time, place, persons, and situations.” (p.78)

These virtuous standards directs our actions in order that nonviolent societies might be. Many individuals acquire ethical standards from their family, their peers at institutes, in religious settings, or in other public locations. While a record amount of societies obtain their logic of that which is

Benevolence and righteousness are universally valued. For example, Christianity and Buddhism both value honesty, forgiveness, loving your neighbor, and making the right choices.

And with this, comes the realist concept of national interest. Realist ideology, statism, specifically, suggests that survival and sovereignty of the state is its primary goals, and the very condition of its existence. With this said, states do have the ability to take care of other actors’ interests and needs in the international community out of something that could be called a ‘moral responsibility’, but only if it somehow serves its own national interests in the process. Morgenthau (1949) explains that state actors who pursue certain national interests and act aggressively resort to liberal sentiment, as a convenient means of justifying their behaviour in the eyes of both the international community, and their own people. This is not to say however, that some states are sincere in certain good-hearted pursuits. But it is indeed true that moral principles prove to be serviceable to national interest (Morgenthau 1949:207). Machiavelli goes so far as to claim that morality is the product of power (Carr 2001:63). Take for example the nineteenth century, in which the British Empire was the global hegemon at the time. As a reason to explain imperialism and its colonial aspirations, they advertised the theory of the ‘White Man’s Burden’ as a moral and social norm, in which

Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.

Cultural relativism is one of the core concepts of anthropology. Are there any limits to this concept? If so, what are they? Is there a place in anthropology for the idea of universal human rights?

An Analysis of Joseph Nye’s Use of “Soft Power” and its Relationship with Morality in International Relations