Angell - a Classical Idealist Vs Carr & Morgenthau - Classical Realist

This paper will argue that Angell whom is a Classical Idealist and Carr and Morgenthau who are Classical Realist have different approaches about the conflicts lived during the 20th century but at the same time they share some basic ideas.

To begin with, the two Classical ideologies that should be difference, Classical Idealism and Classical Realism. The first one, has the main idea that cooperation is essential and that human existence is characterized by interdependence, which basically explains how our well being depends on others well being. Angell belives that his premises are both ‘normative’ and ‘factual’, and that what make his idealism classical are his normative components. The second ideology is based on the idea an ‘Utopian Synthesis’, where it’s moral for a human being to be competitive an to purse for their own interest because humans are imperfect. It emphasizes that each state must ensure their own interests, so each must ensure their own safety. Realists believe on the power of maximization, where it’s needed a domestic control and its essential to have an international opportunism.

Morgenthau and Carr belive in the idea that every human being watch over their own interest and that we all are in a constant competiton with one another. On one hand, Angell belives that to achive peace there are some basics to fulfill such as moral education, Democratization and a international forum. On the other hand, the realists belive that peace shouldn’t be achive via persuation, instead, they think that it must be achive through an inmoral behaviour. They believe that the idealist underestimate the separation of ‘subject’ and ‘object’ because they belive that Philosophers can not simply define the world according to their ideals since the world according to them is in a more real and pessimistic way. In particular, they belived that when Germany and Italy invaded Poland, someone should have ‘struck back’ and that would have ended the confict. They belive that a balance of power is the key for peace.

Something that Angell, Carr and Morgenthau share is a resolution of conflicts to achieve peace. Although it is true that everyone has a different perspective on the belic conflicts experienced in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century, they all reach the same conclusion, peace. On the other hand, they also share the ideology of democratization, since both the realists and the idealists share a democratic thought that leads to peace. Moreover, they all have the same starting point. They agree that in an original state of nature or anarchy, men eat men. But they will later differ due to the realist ideology of stay in that stage and the idealist ideology of evolve from this stage and that cooperation is essential.

These authors reflect great strength in defending their ideas and beliefs. Angell supports the idea that human nature is not is mainly bellicose. Therefore, the military conquest is not profitable for the conqueror "on the simple fact that its conquest would assure to the conqueror no profit"[1]. Meanwhile, the realists differ in this aspect, since they believe in the competitiveness and personal interest of each nation and not in a common interest like the idealists. As Morgenthau expreses in his texts, "The political objective of war itself is not per se per se the conquest of territory and annihilation of enemy armies, but a change in the mind of the enemy which will make him yield to the will of a victor”[2]. He shows that the world is not perfect, therefore “power is always the immediate aim”[3]. His vision is to do as little damage as possible while fighting for an absolute good for the nation.

Despite both the classical idealism and the classical realism ideology had good arguments to weigh their theories, there are characteristics that over time were seen wrong. On one hand, the classical idealism defends that a moral education a democracy and an international forum are necessary to achive peace. The moral education that they promote is based on ensuring that no citizen is contaminated by the Great Illusion. Democratization is based on authorizing public opinion. And finally, the International Forum, which is based on the creation of the League of Nations, where the leaders of nations can discuss certain policies. The intentions were good but as it was observed years later, the League of Nations was a catastrophe. So when referring to the two world wars, the realists (Morgenthau y Carr) believe that the idealistic behavior and the policy of appeasement used by the English and the French contributed to the start of the Second World War.

On the other hand the classical realism gives a clear and practical vision of how the world is, although the world is not exactly how they want to believe it is. They give a pessimistic version of the state of the world that absorbs you due of their own pessimist prospective. This being said, Classical Idealism and Classical Realism have different aproches of the world and how to solve world problems. They give diffent theories to prove their statements in which they argue how is human nature and how should the nations be. Classical idealism sees human nature as a cooperative and interdependent, therefore it gives its opinion according to these factors.

While Classical Realism sees human nature as a being primarily interested in its own well-being and in constant competition with others, so when expressing its opinion about the world it does so in a more pessimistic way only by watching over its own nation and not for the set of these. So even if they have different aproaches about the world, the two classic ideologies watch for peace in one way or another but both reach the same point, a final state of peace.

References:

1. Angell. Great illusion P.44
2. ]Morgenthau. Politics among nations chapter 3 p.31
3. Morgenthau. Politics among nations chapter 3 p.27