Monte Erfourth
INTRODUCTION
The discourse on foreign policy, especially in ideologically and morally complex contexts, necessitates a nuanced understanding beyond binary moral judgments. Historical precedents, such as World War II alliances and Vietnam War compromises, highlight the intricate balance between moral ideals and strategic imperatives. This balance is crucial in the anarchic international system, where pursuing strategic objectives often involves morally ambiguous strategic decisions. Contemporary debates, particularly regarding the Gaza conflict, underscore the tension between moral absolutism and pragmatic statecraft. This article examines the limitations of moral absolutism in war, focusing on the Israel-Hamas conflict to illustrate the necessity of strategic calculation in achieving a more equitable and peaceful international order.
ETHICS, LAW, AND MORALITY
Applying morality to war navigates between the realism that suspends morality during conflict and pacifism that rejects war's morality. Just war theory mediates this, setting conditions for justified war while imposing moral constraints on conduct. Morality, influenced by cultural, religious, or personal values, represents beliefs about right and wrong. Ethics, systematically studying and applying these beliefs, provides tools for decision-making in practical contexts.
No comments:
Post a Comment