Week 12
The Realist Alternative
‘realpolitik’
War is essentially separate from moralizing, especially from the sentimental illusions of just war theory
War is always about national interests; i.e., augmenting one’s nation’s security, power and resources
Two arguments:
Descriptive realism
War is essentially separate from moralizing and the sentimental illusions of just war theory
States simply don’t care about morals and justice—they care only about their own self-defined interests
War exists inside an extraordinary realm, wherein power and national security are the only applicable concepts, and moral concepts are literally inapplicable …
Prescriptive realism
War is about national interests—i.e., security, power, resources
… ‘War should always be about national interests’
National security, power and resources should be sole factors that decide matters of war: “the primary obligation of a national government is to the interests of the national society it represents”
Justifications for war are part of a “crusading mentality” that increases the frequency of war
The standard layout: pacifism, the just war, realism
A: Descriptive realism versus the ‘moral reality’ of war
Is war essentially separate from the sentimental illusions of just war theory? Is war impervious to moral evaluation?
The pervasiveness of just war theory
“For as long as men and women have talked about war, they have talked about it in terms of right and wrong” …Age-old just war theory has evolved so as to encompass the major dilemmas raised by war
Parallels between strategic and moral concepts
Military necessity mirrors the ethics of war—at least in regard to our language
Compare; “you shouldn’t attack civilians” with “you shouldn’t attack heavily guarded positions from the front”
Projecting values
In addition to their exclusive self-interest, nation-states also project values and ideals
The human rights discourse
In modern times, human rights are viewed as universally binding—that is, they are supposed to come before national interests, and frequently do, at least in governmental pronouncements
Do these replies overcome descriptive realism?
“States do not care about morality and justice—they only care about their national interests”
“War inhabits a special realm of power and national security, wherein moral concepts are inapplicable …”
Augmenting national security and access to natural resources is by and large viewed as the first priority of a government
Frequently, additional priorities are taken into account, but typically these are subsumed by the ultimate consideration: national interest à
In particular, the projection of national values, such as universal human rights, is regarded as secondary to the ‘primary obligation’
Should players of competitive sports only care about winning?
B: Prescriptive realism and the ethics of national interest
… Should the decision whether to embark on war always be focused on exclusive national interests?
National security and resource access should be the sole factors in deciding matters of war
Justifying war embodies a “crusading” mentality that makes war frequent
Challenges:
Near vs. distant projections of the national interest
Proximate interests seemingly go against ‘shared moral commitments’. In the long term, however, the benefits of adhering to shared moral commitments are universal
Consensus on the universality of human rights
Human rights are “real, powerful and principled limits on what realism can plausibly justify”—human rights always deserve moral priority over national interest
Do these replies successfully overcome prescriptive realism?
The ‘primary obligation’:
The primary obligation of a national government is to the interests of the national society it represents… e.g., to its military security, the integrity of its political life, and the well-being of its people
Should players of competitive sports only care about winning?
Should people make decisions about marriage & career exclusively on egoistic or self-interested grounds?
Pacifism: war in all its forms is unjustifiable -->
Just war theory: war is justifiable when it’s violence and killing are restrained and it is premised on self-defense
Principle of pacifism/nonviolence:
A personal ethic
A political doctrine
An absolute principle
A qualified principle
Teleological pacifism (TP)
“War is at odds with human development and flourishing”
Non-violence is a necessary condition of developing a decent human personality
Non-violence is tantamount to being a ‘cardinal virtue’ of human flourishing
Therefore: we should follow pacifists, and adhere to their strict rule of non-violence
Possible examples : i) satyagraha, ii) Sermon on the Mount, iii) MLK’s variant of nonviolence, iv) Ryan’s ‘impulse’
Orend’s challenge:
However, consider some other ‘virtues’:
Virtues such as these, of a non-pacifistic nature, seem equally crucial to human flourishing
Therefore, TP grounds a fragile kind of pacifism, not an absolute rule of nonviolence
Is the challenge successful?
Consider our TP examples:
Consequentialist pacifism (CP)
“The benefits of war never outweigh the costs”
Violence, killing, destruction and suffering are the recurrent circumstances of war
Therefore: to avert human suffering we should follow pacifists and adhere to their strict rule of non-violence
Orend’s challenge:
Adhering to the non-violence principle also has large costs
Certain wars might actually inhibit bloodshed:
Therefore: CP pacifists can support war whenever it is probably ‘beneficial’
No moral principle, let alone an absolute prohibition
Bottom line is a question: is non-violence likely to bring advantages?
Deontological pacifism (DP)
“War violates fundamental duties of morality and justice, such as the prohibition against killing”
Some have faith in the sanctity of human life; others support the concept of a universal right to life
These views share the same basic moral proposition: non-violence principle is crucial to morality—
Therefore: we should follow pacifists, and adhere to a strict rule of non-violence
Examples: i) Robert Holmes’s view that “no war can ever be fought justly, regardless of the ends supposedly aimed for”; ii) Narveson’s target version of pacifism; iii) Lackey’s anti-killing pacifism
Orend’s challenge:
The pacifist dilemma appears …
How should we advocate and uphold the sanctity of human life or universal right to life?
1st approach: advocate and uphold nonviolence by strict rule, admitting no exemptions
2nd approach: advocate and uphold nonviolence by actively defending against anyone guilty of aggression
Adopting the 2nd approach fails to provide an absolute rule of nonviolence
It asserts: war is justifiable when it’s violence and killing are restrained, and credibly grounded by self-defense
Is the challenge successful?
It presumably weakens absolute pacifism, and urges us to endorse a qualified nonviolence principle
My exam period contact info:
‘realpolitik’
War is essentially separate from moralizing, especially from the sentimental illusions of just war theory
War is always about national interests; i.e., augmenting one’s nation’s security, power and resources
Two arguments:
Descriptive realism
War is essentially separate from moralizing and the sentimental illusions of just war theory
States simply don’t care about morals and justice—they care only about their own self-defined interests
War exists inside an extraordinary realm, wherein power and national security are the only applicable concepts, and moral concepts are literally inapplicable …
Prescriptive realism
War is about national interests—i.e., security, power, resources
… ‘War should always be about national interests’
National security, power and resources should be sole factors that decide matters of war: “the primary obligation of a national government is to the interests of the national society it represents”
Justifications for war are part of a “crusading mentality” that increases the frequency of war
The standard layout: pacifism, the just war, realism
A: Descriptive realism versus the ‘moral reality’ of war
Is war essentially separate from the sentimental illusions of just war theory? Is war impervious to moral evaluation?
The pervasiveness of just war theory
“For as long as men and women have talked about war, they have talked about it in terms of right and wrong” …Age-old just war theory has evolved so as to encompass the major dilemmas raised by war
Parallels between strategic and moral concepts
Military necessity mirrors the ethics of war—at least in regard to our language
Compare; “you shouldn’t attack civilians” with “you shouldn’t attack heavily guarded positions from the front”
Projecting values
In addition to their exclusive self-interest, nation-states also project values and ideals
The human rights discourse
In modern times, human rights are viewed as universally binding—that is, they are supposed to come before national interests, and frequently do, at least in governmental pronouncements
Do these replies overcome descriptive realism?
“States do not care about morality and justice—they only care about their national interests”
“War inhabits a special realm of power and national security, wherein moral concepts are inapplicable …”
Augmenting national security and access to natural resources is by and large viewed as the first priority of a government
Frequently, additional priorities are taken into account, but typically these are subsumed by the ultimate consideration: national interest à
In particular, the projection of national values, such as universal human rights, is regarded as secondary to the ‘primary obligation’
Should players of competitive sports only care about winning?
B: Prescriptive realism and the ethics of national interest
… Should the decision whether to embark on war always be focused on exclusive national interests?
National security and resource access should be the sole factors in deciding matters of war
Justifying war embodies a “crusading” mentality that makes war frequent
Challenges:
Near vs. distant projections of the national interest
Proximate interests seemingly go against ‘shared moral commitments’. In the long term, however, the benefits of adhering to shared moral commitments are universal
Consensus on the universality of human rights
Human rights are “real, powerful and principled limits on what realism can plausibly justify”—human rights always deserve moral priority over national interest
Do these replies successfully overcome prescriptive realism?
The ‘primary obligation’:
The primary obligation of a national government is to the interests of the national society it represents… e.g., to its military security, the integrity of its political life, and the well-being of its people
Should players of competitive sports only care about winning?
Should people make decisions about marriage & career exclusively on egoistic or self-interested grounds?
Pacifism: war in all its forms is unjustifiable -->
Just war theory: war is justifiable when it’s violence and killing are restrained and it is premised on self-defense
Principle of pacifism/nonviolence:
A personal ethic
A political doctrine
An absolute principle
A qualified principle
Teleological pacifism (TP)
“War is at odds with human development and flourishing”
Non-violence is a necessary condition of developing a decent human personality
Non-violence is tantamount to being a ‘cardinal virtue’ of human flourishing
Therefore: we should follow pacifists, and adhere to their strict rule of non-violence
Possible examples : i) satyagraha, ii) Sermon on the Mount, iii) MLK’s variant of nonviolence, iv) Ryan’s ‘impulse’
Orend’s challenge:
However, consider some other ‘virtues’:
Virtues such as these, of a non-pacifistic nature, seem equally crucial to human flourishing
Therefore, TP grounds a fragile kind of pacifism, not an absolute rule of nonviolence
Is the challenge successful?
Consider our TP examples:
Consequentialist pacifism (CP)
“The benefits of war never outweigh the costs”
Violence, killing, destruction and suffering are the recurrent circumstances of war
Therefore: to avert human suffering we should follow pacifists and adhere to their strict rule of non-violence
Orend’s challenge:
Adhering to the non-violence principle also has large costs
Certain wars might actually inhibit bloodshed:
Therefore: CP pacifists can support war whenever it is probably ‘beneficial’
No moral principle, let alone an absolute prohibition
Bottom line is a question: is non-violence likely to bring advantages?
Deontological pacifism (DP)
“War violates fundamental duties of morality and justice, such as the prohibition against killing”
Some have faith in the sanctity of human life; others support the concept of a universal right to life
These views share the same basic moral proposition: non-violence principle is crucial to morality—
Therefore: we should follow pacifists, and adhere to a strict rule of non-violence
Examples: i) Robert Holmes’s view that “no war can ever be fought justly, regardless of the ends supposedly aimed for”; ii) Narveson’s target version of pacifism; iii) Lackey’s anti-killing pacifism
Orend’s challenge:
The pacifist dilemma appears …
How should we advocate and uphold the sanctity of human life or universal right to life?
1st approach: advocate and uphold nonviolence by strict rule, admitting no exemptions
2nd approach: advocate and uphold nonviolence by actively defending against anyone guilty of aggression
Adopting the 2nd approach fails to provide an absolute rule of nonviolence
It asserts: war is justifiable when it’s violence and killing are restrained, and credibly grounded by self-defense
Is the challenge successful?
It presumably weakens absolute pacifism, and urges us to endorse a qualified nonviolence principle
My exam period contact info:
- Email questions to me at: 9msk@qlink.queensu.ca
- No specific office hours are scheduled, but no problem setting up a meeting
posted by Michael Kocsis at 1:58 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home