» » Justice Among Nations: On the Moral Basis of Power and Peace

Free eBook Justice Among Nations: On the Moral Basis of Power and Peace download

by Thomas L. Pangle

Free eBook Justice Among Nations: On the Moral Basis of Power and Peace download ISBN: 0700609598
Author: Thomas L. Pangle
Publisher: University Press of Kansas (June 30, 1999)
Language: English
Pages: 372
Category: Social Sciences
Subcategory: Politics and Government
Size MP3: 1260 mb
Size FLAC: 1264 mb
Rating: 4.8
Format: mbr azw rtf lrf


Justice Among Nations: O. .has been added to your Cart. Thomas Pangle and Peter Ahrensdorf have written a book remarkable in the depth and breadth of its scholarship and in the clarity and incisiveness of its analysis.

Justice Among Nations: O. By placing currently fashionable theories of international relations in the illuminating context of the long tradition of western political thought they provide a valuable critique and evaluation of these ideas as well as a deeper understanding of the problems of war and peace. -Donald Kagan, author of On the Origin of War and the Preservation of Peace.

Justice Among Nations book. Details (if other): Cancel. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Justice Among Nations: On the Moral Basis of Power and Peace.

Source: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Fe. 2001), pp. 349-351. Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science. consciousness?" (4) How will the presence of nuclear, biological, and chemical April 2001 · Ethics.

Justice Among Nations restores the study of the great works of political theory to its natural place within the discipline of international relations as it retrieves the question of international justice as a major theme of political.

Justice Among Nations restores the study of the great works of political theory to its natural place within the discipline of international relations as it retrieves the question of international justice as a major theme of political philos. In the post-Cold War era, we have lost the clarity that once characterized our vision of international conflict. That oversimplified view has been replaced by an increasing awareness of the moral and political complexity surrounding international relations.

Richard Tuck - 1999 - Clarendon Press.

Similar books and articles. Thomas L. Pangle and Peter J. Ahrensdorf, Justice Among Nations: On the Moral Basis of Power and Peace. Richard Tuck - 1999 - Clarendon Press. Justice, Legitimacy, and (Normative) Authority for Political Realists.

In the post-Cold War era, we have lost the clarity that once characterized our vision of international conflict.

Thomas Pangle and Peter Ahrensdorf provide a critical introduction to the most important conceptions of international justice, spanning 2,500 years of intellectual history from Thucydides and Plato to Morgenthau and Waltz. Their study shows how older traditions of political philosophy remain relevant to current debates in international relations, and how political thinkers through the centuries can help us deepen our understanding of today's stalemate between realism and idealism.

The Ethics of War and Peace . Lackey, Douglas P. (1989). Related Items in Google Scholar.

Thomas Pangle and Peter Ahrensdorf have written a book remarkable in the depth and breadth of its scholarship and in the clarity and incisiveness of its analysis.

Thomas L. Pangle, Peter J. Ahrensdorf.

In the post-Cold War era, we have lost the clarity that once characterized our vision of international conflict. Foreign affairs are no longer defined solely by the ideological battles fought between capitalism and communism or by the competition between two great nuclear superpowers. That oversimplified view has been replaced by an increasing awareness of the moral and political complexity surrounding international relations.To help us deal with this new reality, Thomas Pangle and Peter Ahrensdorf provide a critical introduction to the most important conceptions of international justice, spanning 2,500 years of intellectual history from Thucydides and Plato to Morgenthau and Waltz. Their study shows how older traditions of political philosophy remain relevant to current debates in international relations, and how political thinkers through the centuries can help us deepen our understanding of today's stalemate between realism and idealism.Pangle and Ahrensdorf guide the reader through a sequence of theoretical frameworks for understanding the moral basis of international relations: the cosmopolitan vision of the classical philosophers, the "just war" teachings of medieval theologians, the revolutionary realism of Machiavelli, the Enlightenment idealism of Kant, and the neo-realism of twentieth-century theorists. They clarify the core of each philosopher's conceptions of international relations, examine the appeal of each position, and bring these alternatives into mutually illuminating juxtaposition.The authors clearly show that appreciating the fundamental questions pursued by these philosophers can help us avoid dogmatism, abstraction, or oversimplification when considering the moral character of international relations. Justice Among Nations restores the study of the great works of political theory to its natural place within the discipline of international relations as it retrieves the question of international justice as a major theme of political philosophy. It provides our moral compass with new points of orientation and invites serious readers to grapple with some of the most perplexing issues of our time.
User reviews
Zovaithug
was as expected.
Mikarr
This is another fascinating book from Thomas Pangle, this time in collaboration w/ Peter Ahrensdorf. They provide us with a compelling tour through the history of political philosophy by looking at how political philosophers spoke to or about international relations (IR). Their focus on IR takes them to the usual stops on a Straussian tour of political philosophy (Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavell, Hobbes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, etc.). It also lets them focus on the thought of lesser known thinkers such as Vitoria, Dante, Grotius and Thomas More. They finish their history with searching examinations of Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz.
This analytical history is very enlightening and very useful whether your background is in philosophy or IR. I am not really competent to critique the way they interpret many of the philosophers they examine but I was very comfortable with their presentation of the philosophers I am more familiar with, e.g., Thucydides, Plato, Hobbes, and Kant. I will also say that their essay on Mongenthau made me put him on my reading list.
I think the best way to summarize their history is to simply state that the recast the old Straussian dialectic of reason and revelation in terms of IR's realism vs. idealism. Consider one of their leading (at worst) or Socratic (at best) questions from their concluding chapter:
"Does the liberal, capitalist achievement of a secure and physically comfortable existence constitute a goal worthy of our human being, or does it not ultimately sap our moral spirit and render apathetic or heartless our civic association?" (p.262)
Pangle and Ahrensdorf take this question very seriously and make very interesting points about it. Not the least is their willingness to see that the Christian tradition of just war theory had (at the least) a tendency "toward aggressive moralism" (p.112 but see the whole of chapter 4). They also apply the (very well developed among Straussians- e.g., see Rahe or Zuckert) classical insight that politics seems to flourish among smaller communities or nations. The size has to be such that the citizens can really share in a sense of the "loved things held in common". How does that aspect of political humanity work into the IR need for a cosmopolitan universalism? Heck, look at our country and think of the same issue in terms of how we can make federalism actually work. If it is hard for us in our single, well-educated and liberal (well, prior to Bush) country, then think of the challenge on the international level.
Pangle in particular is up to the challenge of all these issues. In their final chapter, Pangle and Ahrensdorf talk of the possibility of reviving the Christian tradition of political philosophy. They see the universalism of the God of the Bible as providing a possible way to theorize and then actualize a IR that manages to avoid both the totalitarian possibilities of a world government and the anarchial possibilities of a world where there are numerous nuclear powers of relatively equal power.
I want only to make three points about all this.
First, this book was published in 1999. I would suggest that events since then have created more difficulties for the project of a universalist Christian IR theory. Secondly, Pangle may well be up to the challenge. His latest book, published within the last year is entitled Political Philosophy and the God of Abraham. It too is now on my reading list.
Third, regardless of what you think about the above (hopefully accurate) summation, this book is a liberal education in itself. If you are not very familiar with Vitoria or Grotius or Morgenthau or Thucydides or a small host of lesser players like Pierre Hassner or Stephen Mestrovic then you are going to be much more knowledgeable about the history that ties them all together after reading this book. I am going to go further than that. Because of their particular Socratic questioning style, you will be wiser after reading this book. Maybe only a little (like me), maybe a lot (because you are a better person than I am)but you will be forced to confront some of the difficulties that any attempt to theorize the world runs into. Not bad for a book. Give these two gentlemen a read and let me know what you think.
Felhalar
This is not an easy book to understand. Let's attempt a start by grappling with Leo Strauss (both Pangle and Ahrensdorf are followers of Strauss's thought path).

Strauss loathed what he called the waves of modernity, that is, the different phases of the modern enlightenment. The story he tells has modernity going wrong in (at least) two ways. The first, a path set down by Nietzsche, Weber, and Heidegger overvalue honesty. Such honest questioning of religion and standards has led the west to become uncertain of its purposes, a decadent nihilism emerged with all its consequent horrors. The second, a path set down by Hobbes, Locke, and Kant overvalue justice. These enlightenment thinkers believe reforms can make for a more just world. According to Strauss, such an eros for reform has sent the world in modern times careening from one wrecked utopia to another.

Searching for a solution Strauss investigated how Plato dealt with the Greek enlightenment. Plato managed to cover up the dangerous Socratic truth that there is no truth, that human wisdom is knowledge of our ignorance, in other words, that there is no knowledge of the whole/the Good (that even the wisest cannot ascend out of the cave). In place of Socrates' skeptical truth Plato put forward an edifying truth (a truth good for the many to hear) about the Forms: absolutes or standards which by their self-evidence compel the mind.

Strauss follows what he believes was Plato's solution: his public teaching is Platonic, that is, his politics is an attempt to teach the public to have conviction in a standard (in Natural Right and History this is Jefferson's "we hold these truths to be self-evident"). His hidden teaching is Socratic, that is, his philosophy is relentless questioning and such questioning must be kept out of view of the public because the civic virtue of the city is entwined with religion and conviction in standards which honest philosophy cast doubt upon. These two teachings are the dual rhetoric of Strauss.

After this all too brief outline of Strauss, hopefully it is possible to come to terms with Pangle and Ahrensdorf. I am going to focus on chapter 2 of their book dealing with Plato and Aristotle. After a convoluted introduction the chapter digs in by laying out the highest goals of domestic policy.

By nature, according to Aristotle, men live together and desire to participate meaningfully in ruling in accordance with their varying abilities.
For a community to really coalesce citizens need to share more than mere material interests, they need strong ties provided by worshiping the same god or gods, revering the same heroes, sharing common memories. This is what Pangle calls civic virtue, the shared stories in citizens minds.

Such ties will create a sense of distance or even alienation from the rest of the world. While civic virtue tends to teach friendship, honesty, and justice among its citizens with regard to "enemies" it teaches not only the military arts but deceit, duplicity, and double dealing. Conflict among nations is, therefore, inevitable.

Now comes what Pangle calls "a shocking moment," (when a follower of Strauss uses such a phrase something important is about to be imparted). He writes, "In order to maintain it's own security, the best city ... may actively have to undermine the security and independence of its neighbors and do so without necessarily being justified by the neighbors acts or plans of aggression."

Before the reader is able to recover from the shock of what security and civic virtue requires of innocent neighbors, Pangle moves on to what he calls "moral grandeur." Civic virtue offers a powerful passion for expansion, to provide other peoples "our benevolent hegemony" (our justice). The realm of foreign policy is seen as a field of competitive exercise, testing the civic virtue of the nation as a whole.

How to limit this moral grandeur? Pangle suggests Aristotle's solution was twofold; it could be the proper sort of civil religion or it could be a theoretical way of life both of which would open citizens to think of humanity as some sort of whole, to become, in other words, a citizen of the world.

How does such a view (citizen of the world--a view capable of only by a few) sit with the earlier view of civic virtue (a view for the multitude) : uneasily. Pangle discusses this contradiction (I would note the contradiction is from the way he tells Plato's and Aristotle's story, that is, it is more Pangle than Plato or Aristotle), he writes "The more one ponders ... the more one wonders to what extent [Plato's and Aristotle's] reflections on foreign and war policy are meant to indicate some of the sharpest limits on the justice cities are capable." He goes on, "this would mean to say that their teaching [for viewing oneself as a citizen of the world] is intended chiefly as a liberation for the select wise individuals" and that we can only hope "that those wise few may have some appreciable influence upon their respective cities, mitigating patriotic xenophobia, imperialism, cruelty, and punitive moral fanaticism." So ends chapter two which sums up Pangle and Ahrensdorf's bleak attitude of the amount of justice possible among nations.

The rest of the book is just as learned, but always with the Straussian twist, whose dual rhetoric makes the text, regardless of what one thinks of Pangle and Ahrensdorf's theses, unnecessarily convoluted. Such obscurantism makes the book difficult to recommend.