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…
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
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…
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