Introduction
When it comes to the notion of “morality” in politics, it is interesting to note that neither
of the classic Realist writers (Carr and Morgenthau), and not even Michael Walzer and
Machiavelli and much less Thucydides, gave an explicit definition of the term itself. All of these
authors seem to converge on the idea of morality as a social structure that affects the way states
behave. In the absence of an explicit definition of morality, one thing is clear among the authors:
there is an existing correlation between state behavior and morality. Andrew Heywood defines
morality as “concerned ethical questions and the difference between right and wrong”
(Heywood, 2005). It is clear that morality necessarily requires a specific standard of good and
evil, unlike the idea of “social norms”, for example, which is merely subject to social structures
Given the nature of morality, one fundamental debate arising between Idealism and
Realism is the notion of an “absolute” standard of morality. Morgenthau (2006) for example,
questions the universality of morality. Walzer (1996) on the other hand, without outright saying
that there is an absolute moral order, concedes that there are underlying agreements among states
1
Can the concept of “morality” really be said to exist if, as Morgenthau asserts, there is no
universal standard of it? Can notions of good and evil, and the very notion of “morality”, in the
end, be merely reduced to social norms that are constantly changing depending on culture,
structures and circumstances? This debate is also central in determining whether or not morality
even matters in international politics. Claiming that morality is relative is tantamount to asserting
The main argument of this paper is that, despite differences in the moral interpretations of
historical events and political decisions, there is still, at the very root of all these, a universal
moral standard that governs our notions of right and wrong, regardless of culture, society, or
circumstances. This paper is a critique of Moral Relativism which is held by most realists, most
explicitly by Hans Morgenthau. This will be done through a critical examination of the primary
There is a strong link between Moral Relativism and Realism. The idea that states cannot
agree among themselves on a specific standard of good and evil is at the core of many Realist
assumptions, such as the cynicism when it comes to international cooperation and the possibility
of a “harmony of interests” among states, much less a notion of a “world government”. This
being the case, it is necessary to examine the philosophical foundations of Moral Relativism in
This paper will focus on two central issues among the many arguments identified by
Kreeft (1999): (a) cultural relativism, and (b) social conditioning. Morgenthau used the same
2
arguments in his chapter on Morality, where he devoted a considerable part arguing for Moral
Relativism.
Many social scientists may argue that moral relativism can be empirically confirmed
through a cultural approach. Some may equate cultural relativism with moral relativism. Because
of differences in cultural norms, the sense of morality in each culture is also different. By just
looking at the example of the different states in the U.S., one can see that while for some states
gay marriage is perfectly acceptable, other states with a more conservative culture, especially the
ones from the South, find this to be morally wrong. Likewise, in issues such as euthanasia and
abortion, the U.S. appears to be morally fragmented. To demonstrate this on a bigger scale,
social scientists may also argue that in African countries, for example, the circumcision of
women is a traditional practice of some communities, while for other countries in the West it is a
This argument is flawed because it makes no distinction between the notion of “values”
and “value judgments”. Just because each culture can have different value judgments, this does
not rule out a universal value that exists behind these judgments. If we look at the issues
mentioned above, all of them go back to certain universal “core” values. Beneath seeming
disagreements with regard to the application of “values” are real agreements on greater
underlying values. “The moral agreement among Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Socrates,
Solomon, Jesus, Cicero, Mohammad, Zoraster, and Hammurabbi is far greater than their moral
Walzer was right when he argued that “our sharpest disagreements are structured and
organized by our underlying agreements, by the meanings we share.” Take the idea of divorce,
for example. The moral question cannot be simplified into whether or not a “conclusion” of
3
marriage is right or wrong. Behind this issue is a value judgment between core values: freedom
and the value of the family, for example. Couples do not get divorced because they believe the
act to be good, in itself; rather, they do this because of an emphasis on an underlying “good” that
Examining the argument in an international context, we can take a look the Holocaust in
World War II. Does the fact that the killing of more than 50,000 Jews was legitimized by
German society at the time necessarily proves that morality is relative? This is clearly not true.
Killing the Jews was not done just because Hitler sincerely believed the act of killing the Jews
was good in itself. It was done because Fascism made it ideologically necessary; it was done for
the good of humanity. Following a Hegelian logic, in order for “history” to progress, one needed
a superior race within which all other races would be subsumed. Clearly, in this case, the
legitimacy of the act was not due to the act’s own merits, but rather due its underlying
assumption, and this motivation can still be subsumed within the realm of universal moral
principles.
cultural relativism, is the idea of “social conditioning”. This argues that values are just a
construct imposed on us by our social environment, and since societies are different, morality, or
This is, again, flawed, because it assumes that all ideas acquired from society are
subjective. This is not the case. Rules of Science and Mathematics, for example, do not change,
whichever society you are moving in. The way numbers are written, or the way concepts are
explained may be different, but one plus one will always be two. Although it is true, that some
“rules” are created, such as game mechanics, why must morality automatically be subsumed
4
within the latter category and not the former? When are “rules” created, and when are they
Kreeft argues that the very presence of non-conformists in society is already empirical
evidence that values are not conditioned by society. Non-conformists obviously do not derive
their principles from what society “imposes” on them, because if they did, they would be
conformists. Clearly, the argument that values are merely conditioned on us by society simply
Moreover, this argument completely disregards the reasonableness of man, and his
capacity to decide on the value of things for himself, since in this context, his knowledge of
reality, and consequently, notions of “good” and “bad”, are merely shaped by society. It does not
account for the fact that people from different social backgrounds can agree upon a similar value
of things, no matter how different their cultures and societies are. John Locke, for example, uses
the barter system in ancient economies to demonstrate this. The fact that the Indian and the Swiss
can barter means that they are capable of agreeing upon the value of things; that differences in
social background is not a hindrance when it comes to agreeing upon a similar standard to be
We can also apply this same reasoning to the notion of “Asian values”, that are allegedly
different from values held by Western cultures. This is in line with Morgenthau’s attacks on
human rights, calling it “daring” for the U.S. to impose upon the rest of the world its own respect
for human rights. In this case, if morality is relative, then “the defense of human rights cannot be
consistently applied to foreign policy because it can and must come in conflict with other
5
However, there is a need to examine whether “Asian values” and human rights
necessarily go against one another in the first place, or if they actually are subsumed within an
In truth, the debate is not about whether or not certain “values” are universal; rather, the
debate revolves around the emphasis and degree given to these values, not on the values
themselves. In fact, the emphasis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is simple:
“the life, liberty and security of the human person”. Contrary to how some scholars may have
(over)analyzed it, it does not force states to democratize, nor to liberalize the economy.
One major qualm about this of perpetrators of “Asian values” is the emphasis on freedom
and individualism. “Asian values” argues that authoritarianism and the good of society as a
whole is more important than the individual’s freedom and his own good. This may be true, but
the point that must be stressed is, they are not mutually exclusive. After all, the value of the
group necessitates the value of the individuals that compose it. Amartya Sen (1997) contests the
monolithic view of “Asian values” and argues that Confucian principles of discipline and the
centrality of authority exist side by side with Buddhist emphasis on freedom and liberation.
Another evidence that “Asian values” do not necessarily go against more “Western” ones is the
fight for self-determination and independence among many Asian countries, which shows that
Conclusion
coherent philosophical thought by questioning its foundations, which, taking off from Kreeft, I
6
identified as cultural relativism and social conditioning. Moral Relativism is philosophically
incoherent, not only because its very premise is self-defeating (relative to what?), but also
because neither of its foundations fly, primarily because of the failure to take into account the
underlying assumptions behind morally contested actions. Cultural relativism and social
conditioning fail to take into account the rational nature of man, and sees him as a mere subject
to his own social environment and the structures that govern his life. These two arguments also
fail to explain how people of very different social environments and cultural backgrounds can
On the other hand, the idea of a universal morality that governs all actions in society is
philosophically coherent and empirically correct. This paper was able to prove, by examining
underlying assumptions behind moral actions, that despite disagreements on the surface, all
A world where injustice, hatred and death are considered good in themselves is simply
unimaginable, because it cannot possibly exist. So what does this mean in IR? If there is, indeed,
a universal moral standard of good and evil, prospects for cooperation and state harmony are less
7
References:
3. Morgenthau, H.J. (2006) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 7th
4. Sen, A. (1997) Human Rights and Asian Value. (New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics
5. Walzer, M. (1996). Just and Unjust Wars, 2nd ed. (US: Basic Books)