If you walk into the Introduction to International Relations class at Yale you will on day one hear about the three theories of international relations: realism, idealism, and constructivism. Realism suggests that states solely seek to further their interest and power. Idealism instead suggests that states have certain values which they care about. And constructivism suggests that this is all made up – there are no immutable laws.
In this article, I want to zoom in on realism and idealism. Specifically, I want to consider one reading of ancient Greek thought which suggests that this distinction is moot – perhaps even nonexistent.
Our intuitions prime us to think of interest and goodness as separate. While I, acting out of self-interest, may happen to do something good, acting out of interest is not good per se. Likewise, acting in accordance with virtue is not in my interest per se. This distinction was highlighted by modern philosophy such as Henry Sidgwick’s, which drew a binary split between the two.
However, the Ancient Greeks did not think this way. Both Plato and Aristotle argued, in separate ways, that it actually is in our interest to act virtuously. For Aristotle, this is because doing so allows us to achieve Eudaimonia. Best translated as flourishing, Eudaimonia is the idea that contentment and success in life is something more robust than mere sensory pleasure. Happiness comes from a plurality of sources – friendship, health, wealth, and yes, virtue – which lead to a deeper fulfillment.
Now, this theory as it is cannot be superimposed onto the level of the state. Concepts such as friendship or health make sense only metaphorically when considering a government. Yet Thucydides, often cited as one of the earliest international relations theorists, may help to bridge this gap.
My preferred reading of Thucydides suggests that interest and virtue – i.e. realism and idealism – must go hand in hand, because one is impotent without the other. Firstly, virtue is powerless without some consideration of interest. This is shown by the Melians, a small island nation who continue fighting against the Athenians even when clearly outnumbered and offer favorable surrender terms. Long story short, they are annihilated after they refuse to surrender. It is hard to see what good that brings to the world.
Likewise, some of Thucydides’ more sophisticated speakers such as Diodotus and Pericles show that an excessive fixation on interest can result in the death of the state. Focusing on interest firstly alienates one's allies and causes them to hate you, and secondly can lead to greedy and naive overestimations of one's power. In Thucydides’ history, it is Athens’ excessive fixation on interest that causes them to launch the catastrophic Silician expedition and consequently lose the Peloponnesian war against Sparta.
I thus conclude that for many in ancient Greece, the distinction between realism and idealism is not especially significant. It may even be nonexistent. It is in our interest to act virtuously and virtuous to act in our interest.
I do think that this perspective has some merit. Consider the policy of appeasement in the runup to the Second World War, for instance. The allies thought they were doing the right thing allowing Hitler to remilitarize the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, and so on. After all, they were avoiding a war. However, it would turn out that failing to focus on the balance of power would open the door to German aggression and nearly plunge the world into Nazi tyranny. The more virtuous thing would have been to act in accordance with realism and put one's foot down early.
Likewise, it is often against a state’s interests to act self-interestedly. Consider, for instance, Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine. At the outset, this “special military operation” seemed like it would be an easy victory. However, with an unstable economy, international contempt, and very little real progress, is Russia in a better position now than it was before the war? I don’t think so. Sometimes the good action is also in one's self interest.
This all being said, I wouldn’t push this line of arguments too far. It seems like there are definitely cases where a state acting in accordance with its interest is not virtuous, yet still benefits them. Consider all the wars of conquest in the past. Rome burned Carthage after defeating them in the third Punic war. While this left a grave toll of misery and destruction, it meant Carthage could never challenge them again. This was good for Rome.
As such, I don’t actually think interest and virtue are in all cases aligned. However, they may be more similar than the three theories of international relations would have us think. At the very least, the Ancient Greeks show the following. Whenever we construct systems of meaning – such as the three theories of international relations – we rely upon axioms to create simplified models. Not everyone may have the same axioms. Rather than neatly parsing interest and virtue into separate categories, I may, like the Ancient Greeks, as the same.
As we go through life, I think it's helpful to think about which axioms we have created, and whether they are useful or not.
Commentaires