Compare And Contrast Morgenthau Vs Immanul Kant
Professor Bosco
World Politics
September 27, 2013
Hans J. Morgenthau v. Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant and Hans J Morgenthau were pioneers in their separate schools of thought referring to the nature of world politics. Both men contributed to the important debate on how to best decipher how the many different political players of the world interact with each other and why. In Morgenthau 's Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, he states that politics have their roots in human nature, and that being the case we can provide assumptions as to what decisions governing bodies may move to make judging from past similarities. Morgenthau also puts forth that the main goal in the eyes of every major …show more content…
player in the global / political arena is power, and therefore peace is a dream and thus unobtainable. Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, in his essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch proposed that peace is not impossible, and that if governments and their people worked together towards that goal it would not only be possible, but realistic. In Perpetual Peace he lays out the blueprint, if you will, for global pacification. Morgenthau believed that since global politics have their roots in human nature, governments would only have their best interests in mind and would only make decisions that would benefit themselves in the long run.
While it may appear that a government made a certain decision to help a struggling country, or start a war in the name of spreading democracy or bringing an end to terrorism, their true goals lie in much more selfish matters. For instance, a country might send an army into Africa to put a stop to an uprising of rebel soldiers, but on the back side they begin exporting valuable resources to their homeland. Realists believe that power, not peace, is the main focal point of political interest, a hypothesis which can easily be tested by observing the actions taken by previous governments throughout history. By focusing on the study of political power, realists create a continuity of analysis of policy: each state can be analyzed in terms of power politics. Notwithstanding, Morgenthau warns against two common misconceptions: the first would be trying to understand the motives of governing individuals and groups. This is a mistake because motives don 't always align to actual policy or the outcomes of said policies; and the second misconception is the alignment of ideology with action. Put simply, Morgenthau believed that a policy may be made to seem that it has the intentions of the people, or a cause the people believe in, at heart when the reality is that the policy is truly a means to gain additional power. Although it may sound rather obvious. Morgenthau warns that policy has been repeatedly guided by legal and moral guidelines instead of strictly political considerations. As a result, the power of a country and the welfare of its citizens have been routinely endangered. Instead, realism advocates that policy must arise out of purely political analysis. With that being said politics become a bit more translucent. If one were to follow the history of
politics and governments, one would surely find that Morgenthau 's views most certainly hold their ground. Since the dawn of time it has been in mans best interest to fend for himself, and why, then, would politics be any different? Kant believed that through a few simple enough steps, peace could be a reality. He believed that people do, in fact, want perpetual peace despite history proving time and time again that mankind is violent by nature. Kant proposed that there were rules that needed to be followed, and steps that should be taken on the path towards peace. First, governments need to stop making treaties after wars with provisions for future wars. This is very much part of human nature, where even after a war is won a treaty is made looking ahead to a future war, and that needs to come to an abrupt halt. Second, the ownership and trading of individual states, large or small, needs to end as well. When a country is traded, you are trading hundreds upon thousands, if not millions, of human lives. Governments rule via a contract with the people, selling a state is selling people en masse. Third, states need to abolish their standing armies. This is difficult for most people to justify. Governments will say that armies are needed for defense, when the reality is if no country had an army there would be no fear of an invading army. Fourth, and our own government could take a lesson from this, is to stop borrowing money from other countries. Nothing gets produced except for more weapons, and some countries get paid back when new money comes in, and the when the taxpayers money runs out the whole thing collapses in on itself. Governments need to stop loaning other countries money for things like weapons and military funding. Fifth, the idea of being global peacekeepers is absurd, and a country should not try and interfere with another via militaristic intervention. Kant argues that if a state falls apart and is in a state of complete and utter anarchy, then by all means intervene. However, until that happens, governments should allow that state its independence until the issue resolves itself. Lastly, if you must fight, do so honorably. Employing the use of assassins, poisons, and any number of other means to achieve an ill-begotten victory will leave everyone suspect to your intentions, and no one will trust you. Worse still, the people will likely try and forcibly remove such a government, and in doing so will only find everlasting peace in a mass graveyard. While Kant laid forth a foundation for a world without war, it is simply that, a foundation. For his ideas to actually work, all the governing bodies in the world would need to agree to a global demilitarization process, and that is simply unrealistic. Mankind 's history is filled with violent wars and nations conquering other nations, barbarian tribes pillaging villages, and even present day wars with players whose motives can be traced back to the middle ages and beyond. Superpowers became superpowers not through peaceful conversations but through military might. There are those that do actively strive for peace, and mankind is not inherently evil, but he is, however, inherently violent. Clearly, the most fundamental differences between Morgenthau and Kant 's separate views, is the idea that there is a sort of goal that governments or other political entities are striving to reach. Morgenthau believes that the foremost goal is power, while Kant would argue that it is peace. While it is nice to believe that peace is in the minds of every politician or leader, it seems to be farfetched based on history. Morgenthau states that politics are based on human nature, and since the dawn of time man has looked out for his best interests. Kant believed that through partnership and demilitarization the world could one day know a "perpetual peace". One may argue that it is not too unbelievable that the governing political bodies of the world may one day seek peace and pursue it, but until then history proves that the realist view is a much more adequate way of deducting how certain events might play out.
Works Cited
1. Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. 1795. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm (accessed September 27, 2013)
2. Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 1978. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm (accessed September 27, 2013)
World Politics
September 27, 2013
Hans J. Morgenthau v. Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant and Hans J Morgenthau were pioneers in their separate schools of thought referring to the nature of world politics. Both men contributed to the important debate on how to best decipher how the many different political players of the world interact with each other and why. In Morgenthau 's Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, he states that politics have their roots in human nature, and that being the case we can provide assumptions as to what decisions governing bodies may move to make judging from past similarities. Morgenthau also puts forth that the main goal in the eyes of every major …show more content…
player in the global / political arena is power, and therefore peace is a dream and thus unobtainable. Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, in his essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch proposed that peace is not impossible, and that if governments and their people worked together towards that goal it would not only be possible, but realistic. In Perpetual Peace he lays out the blueprint, if you will, for global pacification. Morgenthau believed that since global politics have their roots in human nature, governments would only have their best interests in mind and would only make decisions that would benefit themselves in the long run.
While it may appear that a government made a certain decision to help a struggling country, or start a war in the name of spreading democracy or bringing an end to terrorism, their true goals lie in much more selfish matters. For instance, a country might send an army into Africa to put a stop to an uprising of rebel soldiers, but on the back side they begin exporting valuable resources to their homeland. Realists believe that power, not peace, is the main focal point of political interest, a hypothesis which can easily be tested by observing the actions taken by previous governments throughout history. By focusing on the study of political power, realists create a continuity of analysis of policy: each state can be analyzed in terms of power politics. Notwithstanding, Morgenthau warns against two common misconceptions: the first would be trying to understand the motives of governing individuals and groups. This is a mistake because motives don 't always align to actual policy or the outcomes of said policies; and the second misconception is the alignment of ideology with action. Put simply, Morgenthau believed that a policy may be made to seem that it has the intentions of the people, or a cause the people believe in, at heart when the reality is that the policy is truly a means to gain additional power. Although it may sound rather obvious. Morgenthau warns that policy has been repeatedly guided by legal and moral guidelines instead of strictly political considerations. As a result, the power of a country and the welfare of its citizens have been routinely endangered. Instead, realism advocates that policy must arise out of purely political analysis. With that being said politics become a bit more translucent. If one were to follow the history of
politics and governments, one would surely find that Morgenthau 's views most certainly hold their ground. Since the dawn of time it has been in mans best interest to fend for himself, and why, then, would politics be any different? Kant believed that through a few simple enough steps, peace could be a reality. He believed that people do, in fact, want perpetual peace despite history proving time and time again that mankind is violent by nature. Kant proposed that there were rules that needed to be followed, and steps that should be taken on the path towards peace. First, governments need to stop making treaties after wars with provisions for future wars. This is very much part of human nature, where even after a war is won a treaty is made looking ahead to a future war, and that needs to come to an abrupt halt. Second, the ownership and trading of individual states, large or small, needs to end as well. When a country is traded, you are trading hundreds upon thousands, if not millions, of human lives. Governments rule via a contract with the people, selling a state is selling people en masse. Third, states need to abolish their standing armies. This is difficult for most people to justify. Governments will say that armies are needed for defense, when the reality is if no country had an army there would be no fear of an invading army. Fourth, and our own government could take a lesson from this, is to stop borrowing money from other countries. Nothing gets produced except for more weapons, and some countries get paid back when new money comes in, and the when the taxpayers money runs out the whole thing collapses in on itself. Governments need to stop loaning other countries money for things like weapons and military funding. Fifth, the idea of being global peacekeepers is absurd, and a country should not try and interfere with another via militaristic intervention. Kant argues that if a state falls apart and is in a state of complete and utter anarchy, then by all means intervene. However, until that happens, governments should allow that state its independence until the issue resolves itself. Lastly, if you must fight, do so honorably. Employing the use of assassins, poisons, and any number of other means to achieve an ill-begotten victory will leave everyone suspect to your intentions, and no one will trust you. Worse still, the people will likely try and forcibly remove such a government, and in doing so will only find everlasting peace in a mass graveyard. While Kant laid forth a foundation for a world without war, it is simply that, a foundation. For his ideas to actually work, all the governing bodies in the world would need to agree to a global demilitarization process, and that is simply unrealistic. Mankind 's history is filled with violent wars and nations conquering other nations, barbarian tribes pillaging villages, and even present day wars with players whose motives can be traced back to the middle ages and beyond. Superpowers became superpowers not through peaceful conversations but through military might. There are those that do actively strive for peace, and mankind is not inherently evil, but he is, however, inherently violent. Clearly, the most fundamental differences between Morgenthau and Kant 's separate views, is the idea that there is a sort of goal that governments or other political entities are striving to reach. Morgenthau believes that the foremost goal is power, while Kant would argue that it is peace. While it is nice to believe that peace is in the minds of every politician or leader, it seems to be farfetched based on history. Morgenthau states that politics are based on human nature, and since the dawn of time man has looked out for his best interests. Kant believed that through partnership and demilitarization the world could one day know a "perpetual peace". One may argue that it is not too unbelievable that the governing political bodies of the world may one day seek peace and pursue it, but until then history proves that the realist view is a much more adequate way of deducting how certain events might play out.
Works Cited
1. Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. 1795. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm (accessed September 27, 2013)
2. Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 1978. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm (accessed September 27, 2013)