Peloponnesian War

In the field of ethics, both deontological and consequentialist theories are used to assess the morality of human actions. While a deontologist might argue, for instance, that torture is an innately evil exercise and therefore unjustifiable, a consequentialist might find it ethical to torture a terrorist if this action causes the terrorist to reveal information that saves the lives of hundreds of citizens. In international relations, this divide manifests itself in the debate as to whether morality and ethics motivate international actors or whether actors adhere to a realist philosophy and ignore ethics in favor of self-interest and power. In History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides explores this debate, particularly during his dramatization
Thucydides, Max Weber, and Immanuel Kant would each view this passage in a unique manner. Thucydides would analyze the issue based on his views on the realpolitik approach and need for a wise and ethical leader, Weber would evaluate the dialogue based on his analysis of an ethic of responsibility and ultimate ends, while Kant would view this passage from a deontological approach. While these philosophers could draw different conclusions as to what is proper, the dialogue itself clearly portrays a world in which there is little room for ethics, as international actors are ultimately motivated by realism. The Melian Dialogue exhibits both deontological and consequentialist arguments by the Melians. In the dialogue, the Athenians essentially demand that the Melians surrender and pay tribute to Athens, while the Melians appeal to the Athenian’s sense of decency to respect their independence and avoid
Thucydides view of this passage would emphasizes the prominence of realism in international relations, while potentially making the case for the necessity of wise and ethical leaders. Weber likely would observe the lack of an ethic of responsibility by the Melian leaders, which he believes is a necessary trait for leaders, despite its damaging effects on an individual’s salvation prospects. Kant would decry the immorality of the Athenians for unnecessarily prompting a war, while hoping that humanity eventually uses its ability to reason to enter a federation of states and create perpetual peace. Despite how these historic philosophers analyze key passages, the dialogue overall clearly bolsters a realist argument, and suggests that ethics play a minimal role in the world of