The usefulness of ‘realism’ in explaining Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine has become a keenly contested debate not only in International Relations but in wider public intellectual discourse since the onset of the war in February 2022. At the centre of this debate is the punditry of John J. Mearsheimer, a prominent offensive realist who is a Professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago. This article argues that although Mearsheimer is indeed a realist, his offensive realism is but (...) one of many different realist theories that can forward an explanation of the Ukraine War. Beyond the apparent hegemony of structural realism (the branch of realism to which Mearsheimer’s offensive realism belongs), it is argued that classical and neoclassical realist frameworks can provide more nuanced and, ultimately, convincing arguments as to why Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine. This is because both classical and neoclassical realism can incorporate insights from non-realist studies—such as the concepts of civilization and ontological security—and combine them into an overarching power politics framework. Although neither classical nor neoclassical realism is flawless in their explanations, they demonstrate that realism does not just have to be about international power structures but can offer multivariate accounts of why a state, like Russia, decided to act, such as invading Ukraine. (shrink)

The article considers the development of the ideas of Christian realism as a philosophical and ethical concept of Reinhold Niebuhr. The background of the development of Christian realism’s ideas is described. It is noted that the most impact had Niebuhr’s personal attitude to philosophy and epistemology, as well as the practical experience of serving in Detroit. The methodological approach of Niebuhr is defined as a contrast between the ideal and the real, with the subsequent solving of the conflict between them. (...) It is noted that from the Niebuhr’s point of view, the transforming power of Christianity is rooted in moral and metaphysical dualism, where ethics subordinates metaphysics and gives strength to social and cultural transformations of humanity. It turned out that the ethical concept of Christian realism includes the classification of people as idealists, realists and cynics. Idealists are people who are mainly focused on idealistic concepts that are not represented in the real world. Idealists usually have distorted worldview because they deny taking into account the realities of the world. That also makes them vulnerable to manipulation of cynics. Realists are people who take into account all factors and all known sources of power in the real world, and have a pragmatic position, which is based on moral and ethical qualities. Cynics are those who have a pragmatic position to the world and relations with others, but they guide themselves only by personal interest and egoistic needs, and do not bother with moral restraints. In addition, the relationship of Niebuhr and other neo-orthodoxy theologians is described. Among them there are Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Emil Brunner and Rudolf Bultmann. The polemic between Niebuhr and Bart is noted. It is shown that the main difference between Bart and Niebuhr was in the theological perspective: for Bart it was mostly dogmatic, and for Niebuhr - ethical and apologetical. The most similar to the theological position of Niebuhr is Brunner's theology, but the differences between them are in relation to the natural law. It is noted that the discrepancy between Niebuhr and Bultmann was an interpretation of the concept of myth. Finally, the contribution of neo-orthodoxy to the development of theology of the twentieth century is considered. It consists of five main achievements: the definition of theology of revelation as a concept of knowledge of God, the rethinking of biblical texts as carriers of kerigma, the historical contextualization of theological tradition, the rethinking of the Reformation’s ideas, and the ecumenical emphasis in theology. (shrink)

Although David Mitrany’s international thought is not usually associated with the concept of the international anarchy, I argue that his analysis actually compares two forms of anarchical order. The first form is the order associated with the relations between states, while the second is his functional alternative to this order. The functional approach is anarchical in the sense that it remains an order without an orderer. In first analysing the dynamics and failings of the inter-state order, and then suggesting pragmatic (...) process-orientated solutions to those failings, I argue that Mitrany follows a similar approach to his classical realist contemporaries. (shrink)

Although Lynn White, jr. is best known for the critical aspects of his disputed 1967 essay, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” this article combines archival research and findings from his lesser-known publications in an attempt to reconcile his thought on democracy with the Earth Charter and its assertion that “we are one human family and one Earth Community with a common destiny” . Humanity is first and foremost, White believed, part of a “spiritual democracy of all God's creatures” (...) in which humans and nonhumans should treat each other with mutual compassion and courtesy. It is argued that the Christian, animal-inclusive “biodemocracy” envisioned by White is both compatible with, and potentially in conflict with, the tenets of the Earth Charter. This article also considers further implications of these findings for the larger fields of ecotheology and religion and ecology. (shrink)

In "Toward an Augustinian Liberalism," Paul Weithman argues that modern liberal institutions should be concerned with the political vice of pride as a threat to the neutral, legitimate use of public power that liberalism demands. By directing our attention to pride, Weithman attempts to provide an incentive to and foundation for an Augustinian liberalism that can counteract this threat. While Weithman is right to point to the centrality of pride in understanding the modern liberal tradition, an investigation of the early (...) modern reflections on pride in politics reveals a deeper tension between Augustine and modern liberalism than Weithman's analysis acknowledges. This essay discusses this tension by focusing on Hobbes's account of pride and equality in the commonwealth, asking whether Hobbes can be understood as a thinker in the Augustinian political tradition. In order to provide a background on pride as a political vice, this essay contrasts Aristotelian magnanimity with Augustinian humility. Finally, Aquinas's attempt to reintroduce magnanimity into the Augustinian political tradition is considered as a more consistent development of Augustine's thought, thereby revealing more pointedly the tension between Augustine and modern liberalism. By way of conclusion, the possibility of deflating this tension is briefly addressed by considering Jean Bethke Elshtain's discussion of an Augustinian liberalism that does not rely upon a "secular" conception of human nature. (shrink)

Augustine's ontology, ecclesiology, and soteriology have recently been mined to help Christian realists and liberals respond to the problems that pluralism and conflict create for democratic societies. The results challenge those secularists who object to the late antique prelate's “moralizing” as well as others who insist that “public reason”—not religious traditions—makes for more meaningful political conversations and for collaboration “across differences.” But the results also raise the question whether Augustine would have gone along with the realists and liberals he has (...) inspired and outfitted. (shrink)

The Enlightenment marked a shift inmoral debates away from notions of sin and eviltoward the more secular concept of virtue basedin reason. Perhaps the most notable example ofsuch liberal thought can be found in JohnDewey's 1934 A Common Faith, where he arguesthat people should set aside bickering overreligious differences and work in a utilitarianspirit to achieve public good through science.Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, theChinese cultural revolution, and the Cold War'sthreat of mutually assured destruction haveinspired philosophers and theologians to revivethe (...) concept of evil to explain atrocities tooextreme to be incorporated into conventionalunderstandings of virtue and reason. In theirstruggle to explain the enormity of humancapacities for destruction, they have replacedtraditional religious definitions of evil witha more secular one: the construction anddefense of a systemic contempt for life.Assuming that bad consequences are simply theunintended result of good intentions, socialscientists have resisted employing such aconception of evil. Persisting in thisassumption may prevent us from seeing theperversity of the liberal economicjustification for promoting and perpetuatingdestructive tendencies in the industrialagricultural system. This paper seeks tooperationalize a conception of evil and toapply it to policy debates surrounding the 1985Food Security Act in the hope of evaluating oursociety's inability to resolve social andenvironmental consequences generated byindustrial agriculture. (shrink)

Tom Beauchamp and I were asked by the editors of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy to prepare “intellectual autobiographies,” with particular attention to sources and influences on our work, including but not limited to Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Of course, it is artificial and even impossible to try fully to separate the “intellectual” from other aspects of our lives. So, while emphasizing the “intellectual” aspects of my autobiography, I have attended to other aspects, too. The huge debts of gratitude (...) I owe also mix the “intellectual” and other aspects of life. (shrink)

The American experience of war is ironic. That is, there is often an intimate and unexamined relationship between seemingly contrary elements in war such as morality and politics. This article argues that without understanding such irony, we are unlikely to reflect in morally comprehensive ways on past, present, or future wars. Traditional schools of thought, however, such as moralism and political realism, reinforce these apparent contradictions. I propose, then, an alternative—"ethical realism" as informed by Reinhold Niebuhr—that better explains the irony (...) of war. Through an ethical realist examination of the U.S. Civil War, World War II, and the Iraq War, I consider how American political interests have been inextricably linked with deep moral concerns. Ethical realism charts a middle path that ennobles traditional realpolitik while eschewing certain perfectionist tendencies of moralism. Ethical realism provides a conceptual framework for evaluating these other frameworks—a distinct form of moral-political deliberation about war. (shrink)

У статті розглянуто розвиток ідей християнського реалізму як філософської та етичної концепції Рейнхольда Нібура. Описано передумови розвитку ідей християнського реалізму, серед яких особисте ставлення Нібура до філософії та епістемології, а також практичний досвід служіння у Детройті. Визначено методологічний підхід Нібура як протиставлення ідеального та реального, з подальшим усуненням конфлікту між ними. Зазначено, що з точки зору Нібура перетворююча сили християнства коріниться у етично-метафізичному дуалізмі, де етика підпорядковує собі метафізику та дає силу до соціокультурних перетворень людства. З’ясовано, що етична концепція християнського (...) реалізму включає в себе поділ людей на ідеалістів, реалістів та циніків. Ідеалісти – це люди, які переважно зосереджені на ідеалістичних концепціях, які у реальному світі не відтворюються, і небажання враховувати реалії світу викривлює світогляд ідеалістів, а також робить їх вразливими до маніпуляцій. Реалісти – це люди, які враховують всі чинники та всі відомі джерела впливу у реальному світі, і мають прагматичну позицію, що базується на морально-етичних якостях. Циніки – це ті, хто має прагматичну позицію стосовно світу та відносин з іншими, але вони беруть до уваги тільки особистий інтерес та егоїстичні потреби, і не обтяжують себе моральними обмеженнями. Крім того, описано відношення Нібура та інших теологів неоортодоксії: Карла Барта, Пауля Тілліха, Еміля Бруннера та Рудольфа Бультмана. Згадано полемічні відносини між Нібуром і Бартом. Зазначено, що головна розбіжність між Бартом і Нібуром полягала у відношенні до теологічної перспективи: для Барта вона була переважно догматичною, а для Нібура – етичною та апологетичною. Найбільш близькою до теологічної позиції Нібура є теологія Бруннера, але розбіжності між ними полягали у ставленні до природного закону. Зазначено, що розбіжність між Нібуром та Бультманом полягала в інтерпретації концепції міфу. У підсумку розглянуто внесок неоортодоксії у розвиток теології ХХ століття, який складається з п’яти головних досягнень: визначення теології одкровення як концепції Богопізнання, переосмислення біблійних текстів як носіїв керигми, історична контекстуалізація теологічної традиції, переосмислення ідей Реформації, екуменічний наголос у теології. (shrink)