Final Test: Long Answer Flashcards
Athenians are the speech given by the nameless Athenian ambassadors at Sparta before the war (Bk. 1, secs. 73ff.) and the speeches given by the nameless Athenian representatives in the dialogue with the Melian leadership (Bk. 5, end):
The Athenians created a conception of morality in international relations on three foundations of treating nations. The first is a connection with the Athenian Ambassadors and the communication with the Melian leadership, the idea of prestige and honor. The Athenians put emphasis on their ability to gain honor through imperialism. The second, is apparent in the speech to the melians, saying that Athens taking over the land was making Greece a better place, and not creating turmoil. The last point in Athenian morality in international relations is that that Athens will attack if those around them show envy of what Athens has. The speech to the Sparta court explains this third point.
compare and contrast the most important ways in which Vitoria and Kant would each agree with and criticize the Athenian outlook.
Vitoria’s view on international relations incorporates a variety of different models and examples, but when compared to the Athenian view there are supstancial differences. The first is on the bases of how Athens attack the melians. They should not have done it for honor, or for taking land. Vitoria’s view states that the invasion of another county is justified by an attack on tyranny, or protection from a neighbor. Athens does not do this in any way.
Kant would say the same view in this sector. Kant believes for the Athenian government to be less spurious of the Malians, and allow for the freedom of law.
Hobbes’s theory of natural law, both in general and in its application to international relations, and b) what Hobbes specifically says about the duties of the sovereign in foreign affairs (De Cive, Chapter 13).
Hobbes as a philosopher states in his theory of natural law, that it is cruel. The world in its natural state does not have humans acting as groups, or acting as moral beings. Instead, the world is in turmoil. When applied to international relations, hobbes views the tensions between non-competing nations as harsh, and intense due to the constant threat of an attack, and countries that are fighting there is no reason for countries to act in a moral stature.
- Explain how Thomas Aquinas and Vitoria would criticize a) Hobbes’s theory of natural law,
Vitoria and Thomas Aquianas would foundationally disagree with hobbes in both settings. They both believe that the earth in the natural state has morals given to the people by god, and all have the understanding that these laws exist. This is not to say everyone will follow them, but they do have weight. So, the world would not be cruel, with murders, but instead more peaceful with an appreiciantoin of those law god gives us.
Hobbes also states that it is the duty of the soverigh to lead a government that protects it’s own rights. It does not have a duty to protect any other’s. This means that vitoria and Aquina would disagree, due to the protection of individausl is important, but there should be an udnertanding that good is everywere.
Compare and contrast in what situations and why empire or conquest of a foreign people is sometimes justified morally, according to Vitoria, Montesquieu, and Kant.
Vitoria has the view that the invasion or conquest of another is only justifiable when protecting people from tyranny, when protecting your neighbor, and when helping a neighbor with protection.
Montesquieu states that the invastion or conquestion of another county is justifiable if the war is not for the expansion of power, and that it should be for the protection of the invading country.
Kant states that the invasion of another country may be justifiable in the fact that the world is constantly at war, but it is not meant to be a policing action, and that war should not contain espionage.
Compare and contrast the views of Hobbes, Montesquieu, and Kant on international relations as a “state of nature.”
Hobbes view on the state of nature is that there is no chivalry, or morality between individuals. The state is what gives people the stability to interact between one another. This wasteland of morals is solved by reliquising rights that you have to a government al system.
Montesquieu has a different opinion implying that people within the state of nature work towards peace and security. By reaching for these goals people form governments, and those governments then must interact creating a network of states, that strife for protection, and in doing so causing wars.
Kant also presented a view on the state of nature, stating that the state of nature is in fact a state of war, but people should strife to be the kings of society. To be treating individuals with the respect and trying to complete a common end.
- The role of punishment in international relations is a controversial matter. Discuss how Kant, Vitoria, and Hobbes might disagree about this issue, and how they might agree. What reasons would each use to support his claims?
Kant’s view on the issue of Punishment in International Relations is that war has no police action. As a sate there should be an understanding that punishing people after such a war may be tricky due to what that punishment should mean. If the winners were to punish all the loser it would demen. IN the creation of a treaty, there should be stipulations by each county. You cannot ask for compensation because that would cause it to be a punitive war.
Vitioria: Shows the view that there should be just punishments in international relations. In war, it would be a punishment to take food, but it may be just so that they may not have the ability to fight. There is also a discussion of the idea that is there innocent people in war. The idea is that if the war is unjust then there are innocents, but they have the ability to defend themselves.
Hobbes: Shows the view that things should be forgotten in the past, and that if a punishment is presented then the future good should be consided not the past evil.
Compare and contrast Thomas Aquinas and Vitoria on the one hand, with Shaybani on the other, on the proper role of religion in framing foreign policy. Then explain how Montesquieu would criticize both views.
Thomas Aquinas: Christains may be able to start war, and take part in those wars, but there are some stipulations like one should be defending the good in the world, and be taking up swords to protect the commonwealth
Shaybani: What ever is most advantageous for the Muslims, and all wars must be religious, or jihad.
Montesquieu: Religion should play a minimal role, and really be a communication between individuals.
Shaybani: What ever is most advantageous for the Muslims, and all wars must be religious, or jihad.
