Continuing the Ethical Debate From Class

Political realism denies the impact of morality on governing state actors. However, ethics must be a part of International Relations for the world to coexist. Ethics and International Relations cannot be segregated. Yet realism relies on the design that humans are not necessarily inherently good. This is because there is no universal definition of good-natured. But relative morals can be defined by one’s background: religion, family, socio-economic status, education, political affiliation, even the literature one read as a child. These affect your personal set of morals, which is always aligned with your motives, whether externally regarded as good or evil. Especially in a democracy, leaders act on the behalf of those who elected him/her to power. People are moral animals, even when acting instinctively. If a leader acts on power instincts (in accordance to realist thought) they may not necessarily be acting for the greater good of their people. Self-sufficiency may not be as effective as dependency, which has been proven to lead to security, the medal of realism. Following this progression of logic, realism can negate democracy, the institution it is recognized to protect.