• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

image

PLAY BUTTON

image

PLAY BUTTON

image

Progress

1/5

Click to flip

Card Range To Study

through

5 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
1) What does the following realist thesis mean: ‘there are no significant moral relationships between nations the way there are moral relationships between individuals within the nations’?
Actions of individuals can be condemned morally. But those moral rules against killing etc. have no application when nations are involved. Thus when a nation considers going to war, it doesn't have to consult moral reasons.
'First, they say that even during peacetime there are nog significant moral relationships between nations, the way there can be between people who live within one nation. Individual people within a nation or society can morally help or hurt one another in a variety of ways. When they plan to kill and then actually kill one another, we condemn them morally. But, according to strong realists, meal rules against planning and then deciding to kill, maim, steal, lie and so on, have no application when nations are involved. Thus, when a nation is considering going to war with another nation, it does not have to consult moral reasons (i.e., those that take the interest of other nations and their people into account) before actually starting a war.'
2) What does a strong realist mean when he or she says that moral considerations are inoperative in a war?
They harm the enemy, but do no moral harm to them.
Once a war starts, moral considerations remain inoperative. So if they kill wounded enemy soldiers, shoot enemy sailors in lifeboats, kill prisoners, attack civilians etc. they do no moral wrong.
3) Realists are non-moralists. What does this mean? Give two explanations given by realists to justify a non-moralist position.
a) It makes no moral sense to include ethics in question of waging a war.
b1) No moral authority over nations.
b2) Threat of war makes doing something else than acting in own self-interest impossible.
a) Realists can tell right from wrong, but it makes no moral sense to them to include ethics in the process of deciding to wage a war or not.
b1) There is no moral authority over nations to tell them how to behave on an international stage filled with mean-spirited actors.
b2) The threat of war itself makes is impossible to do anything but act in its own self-interest — as the stakes on war are so high that politically and psychologically no nation can sit down and rationally consider the rights and wrongs of war.
4) What is a strong and what is a weak realist? Give an example of a strong and of a weak realist position.
a) Morals can have a place, but main criterium stays interest.
b1) International society of states. Carr didn't deny universal values, but their absolute validity.
b2) Nature of man. Morgenthau critized Carr for denying absolute values and for suggesting values are needed in international relations.
a) For the weak realists, morals can have a place in discussions but the main criterium stays national interest. The strong oppose interference of ethics.
b1) International system is anarchical in structure but international society of states can help order and stability. Carr didn't deny validity of moral values, but denied their absolute and universal validity.
b2) Nature of man trumps ideology and ethics — drive for power and will to dominate. Morgenthau critized Carr's rejection of absolute and universal perspective, but stated that nations cannot (should not) act on it in international relations.
5) “Even if realists do not deliberately follow moral principles, they can still act in accordance with them.” What does this mean? Can you illustrate this point?
a) They can pretend to uphold moral principles, as long as that means a strategic advantage.
b) Sun Tzu in The Art of War advised to treat prisoners well. To augment size of ruler's army. But what if prisoners refused to take the recruitment bait?