Is there a moral logic that can be applied to the action of nation-states in the world of politics?
Introduction
Morality is the quality of deed which causes it to be good. An act that is morally right matches the conventional standard of right. Morality directs nations to pursuing a common good. A nation that pursues its moral function proves that it is fully complete. The world of politics has been known to hold morally wrong acts. Politicians themselves have been known to be individuals who lack moral principles. Thus, this paper seeks to analyze the moral logic that can be put to the action of nation states in world politics (Jeffrey, 226).
Justification for Morality
According to Samuel Huntington, one cannot justify a political defense in which the armed forces are killed in order to prevent citizens of a country from murdering one another in case of war. The life of one citizen is equally valuable as that of another and killing one in the quest to preserve another would be morally unjustifiable. When states are seeking to follow their interests, the realists argue that they only act when it is in their interest to do so. When therefore these states pursue their concerns in the name of other humanitarian inventions, then they are pursuing some different agenda (Michael, 67).
According to the realist, states are creatures geared towards achieving their own interests and can only act in ways that are channeled towards achieving their own interests. The developed countries for example give aid to underdeveloped countries but at the same time the aid is normally attached to some benefits. They dictate how the aid is to be utilized for example, and make the said countries obliged to utilizing their resources to benefit them. They offer manpower for instance instead of training them so they may gain skills as well. The realists suggest that in such a case, these countries are not moral enough and should pursue their own interests instead and channel those funds towards something else. Though the interest of the nation is to assist, they find themselves acting out of their moral interests by harming the others instead.
One wonders for example, whether the presence of the armed forces is morally justifiable in the first place. In international politics, it is imperative that a state protects itself. In the memory of culture, the customs of a just war continue to be alive. The issue of war between America and the US over the years for example is more on political grounds than on issues of morality. Though the US is always on the grounds of getting rid of terrorism, there moral justification on these remains questionable. Indeed they are protecting their own rights and those of other states but as the realists argue, this is more due to humanitarian issues that are geared towards self interest (Susan, 112).
According to Jeffrey, the ownership of nuclear weapons is not the chief threat to peace in international politics. Nations are ever in the quest to get the most powerful arms in order to protect themselves from their enemies. He argues that the absence of communism was the primary cause. This can be observed when the human rights resistance in central and Eastern Europe brought some great change leading to the fall of the USSR causing the introduction of disarmament in the international realm. This resulted to a misread in political realities that were far much different from morality (Jeffrey, 106).
Justification against Morality
According to (Susan, 92), the nation state is like a pool table. He presents the international affair in an analogy of a pool table where he claims that the nation state is the “bill-ball” of international affairs. It knocks against other nations in a pool table that is present globally. What is inside the balls does not matter but the balls keep knocking each other to and fro. Whether the countries are poor or rich they will never seize to have differences between them. In the midst of all these, global NGO networks and terrorists emerge. This then calls for a more amplified approach to solve the problems of economic crisis, nuclear explosion and change of weather. It would thus only be moral enough for a country to protect itself, thus the moral justification of politics.
Michael proposes that every state should be in a position to save themselves from their enemies. This, he argues would be morally justified as long as the state is geared to achieving some good for the sake of its citizens. He continues to say that no matter how good we pretend to be, we are the ones who end up losing in the long run. He argues that for a prince to keep his authority, it is vital for him to learn not to be good always. He must be “a great liar and hypocrite”. He thus suggests that as much as nations try to be moral enough, most of the time they ought to be “bad” in order to pursue their national interests. If Kenya needs a piece of land that borders it and Uganda for example, it can as well use force in order to achieve the interests it desires (Michael, 107).
Augustine thus proposes that the only way to ensure that moral logic is applied in nation states is by encouraging Christians to take on in politics as political leaders. He suggests that it is an obligation for Christians to engage in politics. He acknowledges that there are moral hardships involved and they also, as citizens owe their duty to the society. He proposes that they can work best because they are obliged to balance between political success and the requirements of morality in which, “they make sane decisions and compensate with the gentleness of their mercy and generosity of their benefits..” he argues that the society ought to accept the necessity of political life but must not be moralized. Human life by nature is wretched and is geared towards pursuing their personal interests. Moralization, he argues is impossible in political life. Politicians should continue to pursue their best and hope that their virtue will earn them forgiveness of sins as well (Susan, 92).
Personal Expectations
For a nation state that is following morality, I would expect to see a situation whereby incase of war, a moral justification of the same can be found. New weapons oppose international security issues that make each country to want to achieve the same. A country for example is morally justified to recover something that belongs to them. In the recent Korean War for example, it would be explained morally as a defensive military reaction to a “cross- border military aggression”. In this case, they required arms to secure themselves against their enemies.
Again, for the US for instance, it would not be morally sensible to suggest that the US must wait until a North Korea or Iraq launches a nuclear weapon so that they can start doing something legitimate about it. They remain with no choice but to arm themselves with powerful weapons just incase any thing comes forth. This, I think would not contravene the issue of morality in the politics of this world (Nigel, 56).
Conclusion
Thus, though nations try to pursue their interests in the international world it is not always easy for them to pursue morality as well. The national interests mostly outweighs the moral interest and thus leaders find themselves biased and attaining more of vices other than virtues. Their pursuance results in prejudice, hatred and war.
Works cited
Jeffrey Paul. Morality and politics, Part 1: Volume 21, Issue 1 of Social Philosophy and morality. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 374 pages
Nigel Pleasants, et al. Marx and Wittgenstein: knowledge, morality and politics.
Harvard: Routledge, 2002. 303 pages
Michael J. Sandel. Public philosophy: essays on morality in politics. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2005. 292 pages
Susan Mendus. Politics and Morality. New York: Polity, 2009. 130 pages
