Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T07:54:50.055Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The possibility of judgement: moralizing and theorizing in international relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2010

Kimberly Hutchings
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

International relations is one of the areas of social science which most clearly brings home the tensions involved in the dual relation of inquirer to object of inquiry, as both scientific observer and moral judge, particularly in times of war. As social scientists, we are required to understand and explain our object, as moral beings, we are required to judge or evaluate it. Received wisdom in international relations premises the possibility of the former on its rigid separation from the latter, so that the understanding of, for example, war, is necessarily distinct from the question of the justice or injustice of war. The former is the task of the science of international relations, the latter task is within the province of the moral philosopher or the normative theorist. I will be arguing in this article that this separation of the realms of morality and politics, on which so much social science and moral philosophy is founded, can be traced back to Kant's critical philosophy, and that this separation has problematic consequences for the possibility of both explanation and evaluation in the international sphere. My argument falls into three parts. In the first part, I will put forward a condensed reading of the Kantian critical position and the problems that it poses. In the second and third parts, I will demonstrate how the discussion of international relations both in moral philosophy, and in political theory, is constructed by the Kantian morality/politics dichotomy, and how this limits and distorts both our moralizing and our theorizing. One contention in the third section of the paper will be that even the recent challenges to traditional international political theory, posed by critical theory and post-structuralism, are in danger of slipping back into a reliance on the morality/politics division, in spite of efforts to overcome it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 51 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kant, I., Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Norman Kemp Smith (London, 1933)Google Scholar.

2 Kant, Critique, pp. A406–567, B433–595.

3 Kant, I., Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. James W. Ellington (Indianapolis, 1981), p. 26.Google Scholar

4 Kant, Grounding, pp. 39–40.

5 Kant, I., ‘To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’, in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, trans. Ted Humphrey (Indianapolis, 1983), pp. 115–17Google Scholar.

6 Kant, I., Metaphysics of Morals Part 1, trans. J. Ladd as The Metaphysical Elements Of Justice (Indianapolis, 1965), p. 19Google Scholar.

7 Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, pp. 71–2.

8 Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, pp. 84–5, 138–40.

9 Kant, ‘To Perpetual Peace’, p. 120.

10 Kant, ‘To Perpetual Peace’, p. 124: ‘As hard as it may sound, the problem of organizing a nation is solvable even for a people comprised of devils (if only they possess understanding)’.

11 Kant, ‘Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent’, in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, p. 38.

12 See recent collections: Singer, P. (ed.) Applied Ethics (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar; Marco, R. de and Fox, M. (eds.), New Directions in Ethics (London, 1986)Google Scholar; Ellis, A. (ed.), Ethics and International Relations (Manchester, 1986)Google Scholar; Paul, E. F. et al. (eds.), Nuclear Rights Nuclear Wrongs (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar.

13 Hardin, R. et al. (eds.), Nuclear Deterrence: Ethics and Strategy (Chicago, 1985)Google Scholar.

14 Hardin, R. and J. J.Mearsheimer in the Introduction to Hardin et al. (eds.), Nuclear Deterrence, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar

15 G. Dworkin, ‘Nuclear Intentions’, in ibid. pp. 37–52.

16 D. Gauthier, ‘Deterrence, Maximization, and Rationality’, in ibid. pp. 99–120.

17 M. Trachtenberg, ‘Strategists, Philosophers and the Nuclear Question’, in ibid. p. 356.

18 I would argue that even when philosophers draw on real life examples, because their criteria of judgement are constructed in possible worlds, they remain essentially isolated from actuality.

19 Wight, Martin, ‘Why is there no International Relations Theory?’ in Butterfield, H. and Wight, M., Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London, 1966)Google Scholar.

20 Hurrell, Andrew, ‘Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 16(1990), pp. 183–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Hurrell, ‘Kant and the Kantian Paradigm’, p. 204.

22 Kant, To Perpetual Peace’, p. 115.

23 Kant, ‘To Perpetual Peace’, pp. 116–17.

24 Hurrell, ‘Kant and the Kantian Paradigm’, p. 204.

25 See Hoffman, Mark, ‘Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate’, Millenium, 16 (1987), pp. 231–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Hoffman, ‘Critical Theory’, pp. 244–5.

27 Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London, 1982); Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (London, 1990).

28 Linklater, Men and Citizens, chs 9 and 10.

29 Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism.

30 Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism, p. 25.

31 See Rengger and Hoffman debate in Millenium, 17 (1988), pp. 81–95.

32 Rengger and Hoffman debate, p. 93.

33 My account of Walker’s ideas is based partly on a conference paper, ‘On Critique and International Relations: Eight Fragments’, presented at the Annual Meeting of BISA, December 1989, as well as on published articles.

34 Walker, R. B. J., ‘The Prince and “The Pauper” in the Theory of International Relations’, in Derian, J. Der and Shapiro, M. J. (eds.), Inlernational/Intertexlual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (Lexington MA, 1989), p. 43Google Scholar.

35 Ashley, R., ‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique’, Millenium, 17 (1988), p. 251CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 R. Ashley, ‘Living on Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralism & War’, in International/Intertextual Relations, pp. 259–321.

37 Kant, ‘An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?’, in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, pp. 41–8.

38 Rabinow, P. (ed.), Foucault Reader (London, 1984), p. 45Google Scholar, quoted by Ashley in ‘Living on Border Lines’, pp. 283–4.