Comparing Kant's 'Thucydides'

Thucydides has a very realist perception of looking at human nature. He believed that men are only cruel and only concerned with their self-interest. The pursuit of self-interest and greed are the true driving forces behind why decisions are made. The greed that lies within man`s heart is why he relies solely on self-interest because he thinks more about what he is getting from something then how that decision if affecting others. Unless, he is directly affected though the impact of the others. Thucydides makes the claim that “…with the ordinary conventions of civilized life thrown into confusion, human nature, always ready to offend even where laws exist, showed itself proudly in its true colors, as something incapable of controlling passion, …show more content…
The categorical imperative is a way of testing possible actions. The maxim of universality is as follows : Act so that the totality of maxims from which you act are such that you can regard yourself as enacting through these maxims a unified scheme of public moral perceptions , the enforcing of which by all reasonable and rational persons . According to Kant, the correct way to think about ones actions are to contemplate whether or not one would like that action to happen to you. In other words, one should use the idea of the golden rule. He thinks that humanity should use this type of guideline, so that humans do not give into their natural ways, and see it in less personal terms. In the realm of politics, if a state besides to bomb another state because they are more powerful, and they want to take advantage of the weaker states resources, using the categorical imperative, the state would only be able to bomb the second state if they were okay with that action happening to them. This idea behind moral duty and action is meant for states and leaders to shift their perspective, and make sure that they are not acting only based on self-interest. Thucydides would disagree, and say that states are only acting within their own self-interest when engaging in politics. This idea can be seen thought his comments …show more content…
Marx Weber is another realist who believed that the power an important component to think about when we examine the use of force by the state. He believes that “we all agree that the state has the “right” to use force. The state is considered to be the sole proprietor of the use force. “Every state is founded on force,' said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated,” It is about being “political” example. It is not about perusing common goals, it is all about power. The State is an identity that claims to have a monopoly on the use of force.” The way he bases his conclusions about the possibility for ethical action in the realm of politics, is by legitimacy. The only way that an action is “ethical” is if it is legitimate. In this way, he depicts a position of absolutes when thinking about moral action. He describes three different types of legitimate authority. The first type being the traditional type such as the queen of England`s claim to the throne. She is queen because simply because her father was king. The second type of legitimacy is rational or legal legitimacy. This is claim to legitimacy is done through a process which is nationally defined and often involves the notion of the law, such as the electoral college and any