Hans J. Morgenthau
Born
in Coburg, Germany
February 17, 1904
Died
July 19, 1980
![]() |
Politics Among Nations
by
50 editions
—
published
1948
—
|
|
![]() |
Scientific Man Versus Power Politics
5 editions
—
published
1952
—
|
|
![]() |
Truth and Power: Essays of a Decade, 1960-1970
7 editions
—
published
1970
—
|
|
![]() |
Principles & Problems of International Politics: Selected Readings
by
4 editions
—
published
1950
—
|
|
![]() |
In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American Foreign Policy
2 editions
—
published
1982
—
|
|
![]() |
New Foreign Policy for the United States
6 editions
—
published
1969
—
|
|
![]() |
Political Theory and International Affairs: Hans J. Morgenthau on Aristotle's The Politics
by
2 editions
—
published
2004
—
|
|
![]() |
Peace Security and the United Nations
—
published
1946
|
|
![]() |
Science: Servant or Master?
4 editions
—
published
1972
—
|
|
![]() |
The Crossroad Papers: A Look into the American Future
—
published
1965
|
|
“Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. As it distinguishes between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes between truth and idolatry. All nations are tempted — and few have been able to resist the power for long — to clothe their own aspirations and action in the moral purposes of the universe. To know that nations are subject to the moral law is one thing, while to pretend to know with certainty what is good and evil in the relations among nations is quite another. There is a world of difference between the belief that all nations stand under the judgment of God, inscrutable to the human mind, and the blasphemous conviction that God is always on one's side and that what one wills oneself cannot fail to be willed by God also.
The lighthearted equation between a particular nationalism and the counsels of Providence is morally indefensible, for it is that very sin of pride against which the Greek tragedians and the Biblical prophets have warned rulers and ruled. That equation is also politically pernicious, for it is liable to engender the distortion in judgment which, in the blindness of crusading frenzy, destroys nations and civilizations - in the name of moral principle, ideal, or God himself.”
― Politics Among Nations
The lighthearted equation between a particular nationalism and the counsels of Providence is morally indefensible, for it is that very sin of pride against which the Greek tragedians and the Biblical prophets have warned rulers and ruled. That equation is also politically pernicious, for it is liable to engender the distortion in judgment which, in the blindness of crusading frenzy, destroys nations and civilizations - in the name of moral principle, ideal, or God himself.”
― Politics Among Nations
“However much the theory of political realism may have been misunderstood and misinterpreted, there is no gainsaying its distinctive intellectual and moral attitude to matters political.
Intellectually, the political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere, as the economist, the lawyer, the moralist maintain theirs. He thinks in terms of interest defined as power, as the economist thinks in terms of interest defined as wealth; the lawyer, of the conformity of action with legal rules; the moralist, of the conformity of action with moral principles. The economist asks: "How does this policy affect the wealth of society, or a segment of it?" The lawyer asks: "Is this policy in accord with the rules of law?" The moralist asks: "Is this policy in accord with moral principles?" And the political realist asks: "How does this policy affect the power of the nation?”
― Politics Among Nations
Intellectually, the political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere, as the economist, the lawyer, the moralist maintain theirs. He thinks in terms of interest defined as power, as the economist thinks in terms of interest defined as wealth; the lawyer, of the conformity of action with legal rules; the moralist, of the conformity of action with moral principles. The economist asks: "How does this policy affect the wealth of society, or a segment of it?" The lawyer asks: "Is this policy in accord with the rules of law?" The moralist asks: "Is this policy in accord with moral principles?" And the political realist asks: "How does this policy affect the power of the nation?”
― Politics Among Nations