The Skeptic Theory of Morality in International Relations Essay

Instead, realists hold that there is some basic idea about nature and requirements of morality, or moral intuitions that guide us (Beitz, 17). Even among realists, there are some with more extreme positions about morality and ethics in international relations. Machiavelli argues that morality can be broken when necessary in order to maintain the state, or perhaps even expand the state. To this end, the prince should be amoral and self-aggrandizing (Beitz, 21). Machiavelli is not justifying unwarranted cruelty, “The prince should not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if constrained” (Beitz, 21). Rulers are permitted to break the shared idea of morality when they are doing so in order to protect the state from intrusion or vulnerability in international relations. Machiavelli posits perhaps the most rigid realists perspective on international relations. The basic notion is that governments and individuals that have different moral responsibilities and individual responsibilities value morality much more than the state.

In the fourth chapter of Machiavelli's Prince, he doesn’t tell his readers the right or wrong ways to conquer a country, instead he spells out both options for leaders and their advantages and disadvantages. Machiavelli uses examples that were world famous. They are empires that shaped the world his readers lived in, and still shape the world modern readers live in. He uses names that would have been household names, Darius, Alexander the Great, the Turks etc.

Machiavellian politics is infamous for its cutthroat attitude towards rulership and coming to power. Among its main points are deception, lying, and skullduggery. In Machiavelli's mind, however, one thing reigns supreme, might. Through sheer power and wise use of it, anything can be overcome and anyone defeated. When dealing with the "prince" of a nation, this sort of conflict usually takes the world stage as war. To Machiavelli, the ultimate tool, and perhaps the only one needed, that a prince needs is the art of war.

Machiavelli knew that cruelty and harsh violent actions can be used one of two ways: to destroy the state or to secure it. Focusing on the necessity of politics and war, he understood that some acts of ‘savage cruelty and inhumanity’ were justified. Other justification includes famine and human rights issues. Wars are started to promote unity and avoid a greater conflict such as a world war.

He uses the example of Agathocles the Sicilian as a man who came into power being unethical and unjust. He was said to have led a foul life, however, his vices were so strong that through becoming a soldier, he became very successful and rose through the ranks, to be Praetor of Syracuse. Once he had established that post, he made himself prince. At one point, he had brought together all of the people and senate to talk over public matters, and upon arrival, ordered his army to kill all of the senators, and the wealthiest of the commons. This man only came into power through brute force and violence. While Machiavelli would say that force of arms is necessary to maintain power, he also says that “ still, to slaughter fellow-citizens, to betray friends, to be devoid of honour, pity, and religion, cannot be counted as merits, for theses are means which may lead to power, but which confer no glory” (21 Machiavelli). This quote alone, shows that Machiavelli recognizes true evil, and while he agrees it may lead to power, there is no glory in such

Though much of the blame is geared towards the U.S. for not intervening, there are a number of different countries that had the financial and military capability of intervening. However, more intriguingly, one must question whether nations had a moral obligation to intervene and consequently, be

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

But, are there any restrictions on what the state may do to other states and to its residents. There are three main points to answer this question: political realism, pacifism, and just war theory. Political realism is an outlook that that there are no ethical restrictions on what one state might do to other in a hunt of its own curiosity. Pacifism insists that honesty practices to the connections between states and especially to intensity in between and so to war. There are two shapes of pacifism: absolute and conditional. The absolute pacifist believes that the war is always wrong and conditional believes that the war might be justified in some situations. Just war theory claims that the war is immoral but is morally defended if it fits both, the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello settings. Just in bello stands for two settings, such as proportional means and noncombatant immunity. And just ad bellum stands for seven settings, such as legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, real and certain danger, reasonable probability of success, and proportional end. This theory also convicts terrorism (pp.

In Machiavelli’s world, he believes it is morally correct for a Prince to sacrifice the people before ever letting his own government collapse. Machiavelli continues to show where his morals lay with his investment in foreign affairs as he puts a lot more focus in external affairs than internal, in wanting to conquer smaller and weaker states around him. In terms of foreign affairs Machiavelli’s morals towards war is presented as once again the state over the people. When entering war he explains to the people that these difficult times are only temporary, even as their “houses having been burned and their possessions destroyed” (The Prince, 47). The Prince still creates a patriotic feel and an obligation from the people to be grateful and have love for their Prince because he has made them believe that he has protected them from outside foreign attacks. It is evident that Machiavelli has high morals for war as he states that a Prince “should have no other thought, or take up anything as his profession, except for war and its rules and discipline, for that is the only art that befits the one who commands” (The Prince, 63). These moral views of what a Prince should prioritize according to Machiavelli are views that Socrates would not agree with.

Sometimes states have conflicts brought about by national interests, disagreements on natural resources, war and distribution of power thereby enacting strict measures on their

The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,

Carnahan’s article offers a systematic analysis about the concept of military necessity, showing that civilian interests must be taken into consideration with assessing military necessity. The use of force by states is controlled and restricted by both customary international law and treaty law. Although there is no legal restriction to war (just ad bellum), international law such as customary law and the Geneva Conventions provide certain international law restrictions on the right to use force against other state. Carnahan discusses the Lincoln Code, the Lieber law and the Laws of War in his article. The Lieber Code. Certain limitations are imposed on states as these restrictions tend to only apply to states that have recognized sovereignty (recall week 2 reading). The present “War on Terror” is refrained as the United Nations Charter

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

The emergence of international organizations and international norms has undoubtedly changed the way states exercise power in international politics. On the one hand, international organizations may have a large influence over the behavior of states by spreading international norms, such as self-determination, that then help shape foreign policy. They could also be viewed as a form of global governance that ameliorates nationalistic aggression. On the other hand, international organizations could be seen as simply a reflection of the existing balance of power within an anarchic, self-help system; international norms simply a convenient ideological rhetoric for a state to utilize in order to legitimize and justify their national interests.

More specifically, the positive results of cruelty justify the acts themselves. Machiavelli believes that an appropriate amount of cruel acts should occur swiftly in order to give time for the state to heal afterwards. If a ruler uses force to acquire power for the states but does not continue it, then the force is justified. This time to heal prevents hatred by citizens towards the ruler. In terms of justified cruel acts, Ali suggests that Machiavelli “assumes that in the end such cruel means are turned to 'good' ends defined as the welfare of the prince's subjects” (2015). Welfare is the key word here because it validates any act of violence a ruler practices, and changes the image of this action into something respectable. Again, Machiavelli breaks away from a classical sense of morality by not condemning cruelty. Due to the fact that Machiavelli prioritizes the stability of power in the state, his moral compass always points towards the good of the state. Thus, any action to pursue this cause is warranted and moral.