Thucydides, the great historian of the Peloponnesian War, is often hailed as the founding father of the realist school of international relations. But to what extend was Thucydides a realist?
Political realists make a number of claims, and contemporary realists disagree about what, precisely, realism entails. Nevertheless, realists tend to agree on these two things: 1) the actions of states are guided by their interests, and 2) moral values have little to do with international relations.
The prime exemplar of Thucydides apparent realism is the Melian Dialogue.
For Thucydides, wars are fought over three things: fear, honour, and interests.
The Sicilian Expedition.
21 May 2014
20 May 2014
A Consequentialist Argument against Area Bombing
In the debate over the Allied
area bombing campaign during the Second World War, it is often assumed
that the defenders of the campaign must be consequentialists, while
those against must be moral absolutists. Bishop George Bell challenges
this line of thought.
One might expect, from a bishop of the Church, an absolutist argument: And God said, Thou shalt not target civilians—or something like that. But when Bishop Bell addressed the House of Lords in 1944, he made no appeal to absolute moral rule:
Bell's argument is a thoroughly consequentialist one. While the bombing of civilians may seem to be justified in the short term, if we consider the long-term consequences, we will see that it is wholly unjustified. For Bell, true consequentialists—those who consider all of the consequences—ought to oppose the targeting of civilians.
1. Jonathan Glover. 1999. Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century. London, UK: Jonathan Cape.
One might expect, from a bishop of the Church, an absolutist argument: And God said, Thou shalt not target civilians—or something like that. But when Bishop Bell addressed the House of Lords in 1944, he made no appeal to absolute moral rule:
"How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civilisation? How can they be blind to the harvest of even fiercer warring and desolation, even in this country, to which the present destruction will inevitably lead when the members of the War Cabinet have long passed to their rest?... What we do in war—which, after all, lasts a comparatively short time—affects the whole character of peace, which covers a much longer period." (1)
Bell's argument is a thoroughly consequentialist one. While the bombing of civilians may seem to be justified in the short term, if we consider the long-term consequences, we will see that it is wholly unjustified. For Bell, true consequentialists—those who consider all of the consequences—ought to oppose the targeting of civilians.
1. Jonathan Glover. 1999. Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century. London, UK: Jonathan Cape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)