Alls Fair In Love And War Essay -- Argument Argumentative Morals Pape

Alls Fair In Love And WarThe Political Realists ArgumentIs war ever the set or wrong thing to do? Political Realists claim that war is just and permissible only when it is in the best interest of a state. Further, they point goodity has no place in find the justifiability of war. In considering the legitimacy of war, I will first analyze one main argument in support of Political Realism, after which I will critique the argument, which I provided in support of political realism.Political Realists clearly state that war is acceptable in one case it is in the states best interest to do so, and once embroiled in a war, a nation must employ all methods to ensure that mastery is the end result (Morgenthau 14). They believe that war is an intractable part of an anarchical world system (War). And that it ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in cost of national self-interest. While political realism is an intricate and highly developed doctrine, Political Realists assert that its core propositions center on a strong rejection of applying moral concepts to the conduct of internationalist relations (Ibid).Political realists denounce the idea of applying morality when discussing the justifiability of war for two main reasons. Firstly, political realists believe that only a tiptop and legitimate international authoritative body can impose a moral system upon all nations (Lauleta 2). Secondly, realists assert that there is no overriding international authority that enforces a common code of rules that apply to all nation states (Ibid) Therefore, by virtue of accepting these two main premises realists contend that we should not use morality as a factor in considering the legitimacy of war.In arguing th... ... We can clearly see evidence of this whereby countries abide by international laws. Therefore, it is safe to say that we do not need a world government to determine universal morality because other world organizations ar capable of establishing common codes of conduct and laws.We have explored two counter arguments. Firstly, a common sense of morality among states does not require authority as a common basic morality, despite cultural diversity, is innate in every human being. Secondly, states participation in international organizations ensures that a common set of rules determining the justifiability of war can be applied to all states. Therefore, when states co-operate without a universal governmental body, they can arrive at some degree of commonality where international law is concerned. Therefore, in conclusion, we can evaluate war based on moral issues.