Morality Is the Enemy of Peace

We must face the fact that international relations are governed by interests and not by moral principles. Then it can be seen that the validity of treaties depends on mutual convenience. This can provide an effective guarantee.

Pacifism seems to place infinite weight on sins of commission and none whatsoever on those of omission. It is a counterfeit ethics: for instead of grappling with the hard realities of our world, pacifism takes as its focus the imagined moral purity of the pacifist himself—who merely pretends to be good while others do the dirty work of defending ci

If a people are free to initiate warfare, sue for peace when they lose, then expect to be treated at the negotiating table as the moral equals of those they attacked, there will be little disincentive to aggression. Why not start a war?

Peace is another word abused by those with hidden pecking order goals. It usually means, “Since I’m on top, let’s keep the status quo” or, “Now that I’ve managed to climb on your back, would you please be kind enough to sit still. ‘’ Justice is the term used by those on the bottom of the heap who are itching to move up. When these folks refer to “t

the test of statesmen is the durability of political structures under stress, while prophets gauge their achievements against absolute standards. If the statesman assesses possible courses of action on the basis of their utility rather than their ‘truth’, the prophet regards this approach as sacrilege, a triumph of expediency over universal princip

peace can come to seem to be a kind of betrayal. It involves compromise and settling for less than one would like. It has none of the purity and clarity of war, in which the issues – self-defence, national honour, patriotism, pride – are unambiguous and compelling. War speaks to our most fundamental sense of identity: there is an ‘us’ and a ‘them’,