The Unethical International

It has been recorded since the high renaissance period about the battle leaders faced in other to secure their state. Thus, the leaders are thought to have a different moral ethics. Machiavelli defended the moral attitude of these men as he believed having a normal attitude does not benefit a leader when dealing with his state’s national interest. He believes has to be morally ambiguous. However Beitz states that a leader’s moral responsibility is put to question on the basis of whether or not his moral judgment should be different from his people.

            According to Morgenthau, the moral conduct of the 19^th century stated that during the war, noncombatants civilians must be avoided and even if attacks were to happen due to the proximity, then sanctions are to be dealt out. This code is no longer in effect, as wars in modern times, often injure and kill many civilians. There are complexities to the war and moral standards. The destruction of an opponent’s means of production can be seen as unethical while being advantageous. An example is the criticism, Roosevelt faced in World War II when he and his policy advisers decided to destroy Hiroshima while he condemned the Russian embargo and Japan for the canton bombing incident.

            Most states like the United States and other strong states like Russian, Germany and France may prefer and use the state of nature theory; it leaves the weaker states worse off and without much bargaining power. I don’t agree with Beitz on the issue of states on the promotion of national interest which could produce morally right action in international relations.  From the wars and those of the past, none of the international ethics has been morally justified for the people. The Vietnam War ended with too many casualties and so have the other wars.