Caitie Eckna Blog Post 1
There was one question we were left with during class; which was are politics moral? This argument stems from the opposing beliefs of Hans Morgenthau and J. Ann Tickner and their six principles of political realism. Morgenthau reveals his belief that there are no universal morals in politics, while Tickner opposes this and states that all actions are moral. The debate from class leads us to think about how people act in politics and if they take into consideration their morals when making decisions. I believe that anyone has the ability to act immorally and typically in politics morals are not taken into consideration when making decisions. To gain in the political atmosphere people must put their morals aside due the fact that power is stronger in politics. Finding justice in international politics simply does not work because countries are acting in their self-interest, and typically not thinking about how policies or decisions will affect the rest of the world.
The statement that morals are universal insinuates that systems of ethics apply to all individuals, regardless of differences. Morgenthau disputes this claim because the survival of the state will always trump morality. The primary function of the state is to satisfy and protect the national interest, not take into account the ethics surrounding these decisions. Political realists maintain the belief that moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of the states, essentially morals do not apply to politics.
On the other hand Tickner believes that all states act morally. Her feminist perspective looks to find common moral elements in human aspirations which in hopes could be the foundation of de-escalating international conflict. This would build the international community and help more individuals. Tickner explains that there is an inequality between the morals at the universal and national level in realism. This contradicts Morgenthau who expresses that morals are not the priority rather successful political action. Morgenthau sees morality only being used by states to justify conduct. In international relations power is superior to justice. It is clear through history that this holds true and often morals are looked past when dealing with international politics.
Caitie, I think you post if fascinating. I do however disagree with you on saying that all politics are acted without morality. I think in some cases there are examples of actions taken without morals, and many politicians seem to act without morals for more power. But today politics are just so competitive and it is so easy to see and hear what politicians are doing. And our society as a whole has moved towards taking more moral actions and if politics was truly immoral, at least in many civilized nations it would be hard for a politician to get reelected. I believe people care and have morals and for democratic nations at the minimum I think that gets carried on by politicians, even when sometimes it seems like it is not true.
ReplyDeleteBouncing off of Michael's comment, I do think that many, if not all, of the actions politicians take today are acted in a sense of morality. I think that Moreganthau argues more of an amoral approach to politics rather than immoral. In addition, I think that the decision to put morals aside because power might be more important could be tied to the morals of a politician. Perhaps they value power more than their own opinion? Perhaps state's acting in self interest align with their morals? I have to ask, how do you think Tickner's point on finding commonalities in morals affect how states approach politics? I know you mention de-escalation of conflict, but can you think of any possible contemporary examples of Tickner's point?
ReplyDelete