Prime-Ministers aimed at preservation of peace and stability and less at strengthening of his own power. But many of his errors were conducive to the beginning of the Second World War “Policy with the connivance of Chemberland was based on peaceful intentions”. From another point of view, motives of sir W. Cherchil as to internal policy were less universal and less noble, and were oriented on preservation of personal power. Although Cherchil’s achievements in internal policy excelled achievements of his predecessors in several times.
So, ethics takes into account morals of human’s motives, and political theory should pay attention to will, wit, and practical actions of a politician.
Political realism in a theory of international relations also means possibility of avoiding one more illusion – influence of ideological ideas of leaders on internal policy. In the countries where there is democratic control on the actions of government it is impossible to give up sacrifice political rationalism to please emotions and demonstration of support of internal policy.
Although, political realism doesn’t only mean the whole refusal from political principles and ideas. The position of political realism requires a vivid differentiation between wished and existing things, it also requires a valuation of possibility in the concrete circumstances. So, internal policy should be emotionally neutral, rational and objective.
It is important to mention, that Gans Mongentaw also stood at the sources of the theory of rational choose. Rational and well thought-out internal policy are based on a political experience and it excludes accidental deviations. Ration internal policy is aimed at minimalisation of risk and maximisation of prohibit. It is also submitted to the rules of sense and political success.
The forth principle of political realism are connected with dynamic understanding of national interests. Margentaw writes: “Political realism supposes a conception of an interest understood in terms of power, not as fixed once, but as dependant from a situation”. Interests are changeable depending on historical conditions. Here the author refers to Veber who wrote that interest (material and ideal) is not only ideas defined as type of social action. There are different type of interests. Among them there are interests defining political actions; they are formed in a concrete historical period.
Interests are long-term standards; in accordance with them, political decisions and actions should be judged and appreciated. Modern connections between interests and national state are results of history and can be changed. And now Morgentaw asks a question: how the modern world can be transformed. A connection between national interests and their results – states - can be escaped soon. Political realism doesn’t deny that modern division of the world into national states can be replaced by unions of states or by another formations.
Under the doctrine of political realism, universal general moral principles are not applied (for an evaluation of actions of states). Morgentaw says that activity of states can be based only on ethics of responsibility but not on ethics of persuasions. He writes: “At the same time, then a man has a moral right to sacrifice himself, a state has not a right to allow any moral disappovement to stand in the way of rational political action. Political actions should be based on principles of survival and self-preservation of a sovereign state. And then Morgentaw goes on “There is no morality without sense”. From the point of view of realism, sense means an accounting of consequences of possible alternative political actions and sense is the highest virtue in policy. Political ethics help to realize actions according to their results and consequences.
Political realism rejects any right of a nation to create the universal moral law which could be adopted by everyone. Political realism rejects any identity between a moral nation and universal laws. A lot of thing had the same temptation – that is – to propose their own aims, power in the capacity of universal principles.
Morgentaw adds also that there is a huge difference between political realism and another theoretical schools – political realism differs the legal and moral approach to international relations Morgentaw gives an example: the USSR attacked Finland in 1939. An act of aggression was subjected to criticism from the side of France and Great Britain from two point of view.
1) from the point of view of international right
2) from the political point of view.
1. Under criticism of the USSR from the point of view of international right a question was arisen: indeed did the USSR act with a violation of a convection, adopted by the the League of nations and if an answer is “Yes” than, what measures could be accepted by France and Great Britain.
2. While they were criticizing the USSR, a question was set up by different forces. The question was: “What national interests of France and Great Britain were affected by the actions of the USSR and what was the influence of these actions on Germany”.
To