Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
Bitter disputes regarding the relation of morals to politics did not begin with Machiavefli but have been almost continuous since his time. No wonder, therefore, that the conflict has broken out in our own day with specific reference to American foreign policy. Now, as in times past, the proponents of differing viewpoints utter harsh and dogmatic judgments concerning one another. This is probably unavoidable if one considers that the issue is both vital and highly controversial, but recent arguments have thrown more heat than light upon the ancient dilemma. It is therefore proposed, in this paper, to ascertain what nub of truth there is in the arguments.
Most jarring to American traditions are the central tenets of what might be called the “realpolitik school” of American policy. There are many advocates of this view, but it finds its most complete expression in the writings of Hans J. Morgenthau. Although the theories of this school have many ramifications, its central position might be stated somewhat as follows:
International politics consists of a struggle for power between nations. This struggle goes on continuously and, apparently, never ends. Since each nation is only interested in maximizing its own power, the one true guide to a successful foreign policy is “the national interest.” Idealism is sentimental and Utopian. The brute facts of power render idealism not only a luxury but a delusion.
1 Morgenthau, Hans J., Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (Chicago, 1946)Google Scholar; Politics among Nations (2nd ed., New York, 1954)Google Scholar; In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1951).Google Scholar There are many variations and subtle differences among the various proponents of realpolitik. The following criticism, while it does not apply in many of its small details to every proponent of power politics, does affect their theories at least in the main outlines. See, e.g.: Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years Crisis (New York, 1939)Google Scholar; Schuman, Frederick L., International Politics (New York, 1953)Google Scholar; Strausz-Hupé, Robert and Possony, Stefan T., International Relations (New York, 1950)Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, Georg, Power Politics (New York, 1951).Google Scholar
2 Morgenthau, , Scientific Man vs. Power Politics, 191–2.Google Scholar
3 Ibid., 192–3. It has been erroneously assumed that Professor Morgenthau's analysis rests solely upon the existence of the animus dominandi. See Wolfers, Arnold, “The Pole of Power and the Pole of Indifference,” World Politics, IV, 10, 1951, 42.Google Scholar
4 Tannenbaum, Frank, “The Balance of Power vs. the Coordinate State,” Political Science Quarterly, LXVII, 06, 1952, 176.Google Scholar
5 Ibid., 176.
6 Ibid., 173, 192; also, by the same author, “The American Tradition in Foreign Relations,” Foreign Affairs, XXX, 10, 1951, 34.Google Scholar
7 Montagu, Ashley, Darwin: Competition and Cooperation (New York, 1952), 70.Google Scholar See also Doob, Leonard W., Social Psychology (New York, 1952), 210–17.Google Scholar
8 Politics among Nations, 30.
9 McDougall, W., An Outline of Psychology (London, 1928), 456 Google Scholar; Adler, A., The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology (London, 1932), 352.Google Scholar
10 Blackburn, Julian, Psychology and the Social Pattern (New York, 1945), 116–20.Google Scholar
11 Allee, Warder, Animal Life and Social Growth (Baltimore, 1932)Google Scholar, and The Social Life of Animals (New York, 1938).Google Scholar
12 Kroeber, A. L., Anthropology (New York, 1948), 619.Google Scholar
13 Bidney, David, Theoretical Anthropology (New York, 1953), 5–6.Google Scholar
14 Benedict, Ruth, Patterns of Culture (London, 1935), 30–2Google Scholar; Klineburg, O., Race Differences (New York, 1935), 264 Google Scholar; Bidney, , Theoretical Anthropology, 76–82, 112–13.Google Scholar
15 Politics among Nations, 31.
16 Barker, Ernest, Essays on Government (Oxford, 1945), 64–5.Google Scholar
17 Morgenthau, Hans J., “The Mainsprings of American Foreign Policy: The National Interest vs. Moral Abstractions,” American Political Science Review, XLIV, 12, 1950, 854.Google Scholar
18 Ibid., 849.
19 Ibid., 854.
20 Ibid., 853.
21 Beard, Charles A., The Idea of National Interest: An Analytical Study in American Foreign Policy (New York, 1934), 406.Google Scholar
22 Professor Morgenthau seems to have realized this fundamental weakness of the concept in one of his latest articles. See “Another ‘Great Debate’: The National Interest of the United States,” American Political Science Review, XLVI, 12, 1952, 971.Google Scholar In the second edition of Politics among Nations his original views appear to have been qualified in order to meet this type of objection. His fundamental position, however, has been by no means abandoned.
23 Morgenthau, , in Defense of the National Interest, 34.Google Scholar “What justice means in the United States can within wide limits be objectively ascertained: for interests and convictions, experiences of life and institutional traditions have in large measure created a consensus concerning what justice means under the conditions of American society.”
24 “The Mainsprings of American Foreign Policy,” 854.
25 Scientific Man vs. Power Politics, 197–203.
26 Ewing, A. C., “Ethics and Politics,” Philosophy, XXVI, 01, 1951, 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar No one, of course, would deny that the effect of the means employed upon human values must be considered in seeking a scientific course of action.
27 Ibid., 27.
28 Ibid., 27.
29 “Another ‘Great Debate,’” 985–6.
30 Carritt, E. F., Morals and Politics (Oxford, 1935), 117–18.Google Scholar The quotation is an accurate paraphrase of Hegel's main concepts. See Hegel, , Philosophy of Right, tr. Knox, T. M. (Oxford, 1945), para. 330–47.Google Scholar
31 Oakeley, H. D., “Is Political Activity under a Different Law from that of Personal Ethics?” Philosophy, XIII, 01, 1938, 64 Google Scholar; Mabbott, J. D., “The Concepts of Politics,” Philosophy, XIII, 07, 1938, 266–8.Google Scholar
32 Carritt, E. F., Morals and Politics, 5–6.Google Scholar
33 Pritchard, H. A., Moral Obligation: Essays and Lectures (Oxford, 1949), 112.Google Scholar
34 Morgenthau, , “Another ‘Great Debate,’” 987.Google Scholar
35 Ibid., 987.
36 Ibid., 985–6, 971.
37 “A foreign policy derived from the national interest is in fact morally superior to a foreign policy inspired by universal moral principles.” Morgenthau, Hans J., “The Mainsprings of American Foreign Policy,” 854 Google Scholar; see also his In Defense of the National Interest, 33 ff.
38 Prichard, , Moral Obligation, 86.Google Scholar
