The age of amorality: Can America save the liberal order through Illiberal means?
By: Brands, Hal
.
Material type: 
BookPublisher: Foreign Affairs Description: 103(3), Mar-Apr, 2024: p.104-119.
In:
Foreign AffairsSummary: How much evil we must do in order to do good,” the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in 1946. “This, I think, is a very succinct statement of the human situation. “Niebuhr was writing after one global was had forced the victors to do great evil to prevent the incalculably greater evil of a world ruled by its most aggressive regimes. He was witnessing the onset of another global conflict in which the United states would periodically transgress its own values in order to defend them. Reinhold Niebuhr's words underscore a profound moral complexity that resonates deeply across history. His reflection captures a troubling yet inevitable aspect of human choices—when faced with existential threats, individuals or nations might find themselves compelled to compromise their own principles to avert catastrophic consequences. This quandary of balancing ends and means is what Niebuhr described as a persistent "human situation."
The backdrop of his statement—post-World War II—was a time of global reckoning, as nations grappled with the ethical ramifications of warfare and power struggles. World War II highlighted this tension, as the Allied forces confronted monstrous regimes with extreme measures, sometimes in ways that raised moral questions. Similarly, the emerging Cold War presented the United States with dilemmas where it sometimes strayed from its proclaimed ideals, in the name of defending those ideals from perceived threats. It's fascinating how Niebuhr's insights continue to inspire discussions about ethics, leadership, and the delicate dance between pragmatic decision-making and moral integrity. His philosophy challenges us to confront uncomfortable truths and recognize the inherent imperfections in both individuals and societies. What does this quote stir up in you? Do you find it still applicable to dilemmas we face today? – Reproduced
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Indian Institute of Public Administration | 103(3), Mar-Apr, 2024: p.104-119 | Available | AR131699 |
How much evil we must do in order to do good,” the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in 1946. “This, I think, is a very succinct statement of the human situation. “Niebuhr was writing after one global was had forced the victors to do great evil to prevent the incalculably greater evil of a world ruled by its most aggressive regimes. He was witnessing the onset of another global conflict in which the United states would periodically transgress its own values in order to defend them. Reinhold Niebuhr's words underscore a profound moral complexity that resonates deeply across history. His reflection captures a troubling yet inevitable aspect of human choices—when faced with existential threats, individuals or nations might find themselves compelled to compromise their own principles to avert catastrophic consequences. This quandary of balancing ends and means is what Niebuhr described as a persistent "human situation."
The backdrop of his statement—post-World War II—was a time of global reckoning, as nations grappled with the ethical ramifications of warfare and power struggles. World War II highlighted this tension, as the Allied forces confronted monstrous regimes with extreme measures, sometimes in ways that raised moral questions. Similarly, the emerging Cold War presented the United States with dilemmas where it sometimes strayed from its proclaimed ideals, in the name of defending those ideals from perceived threats. It's fascinating how Niebuhr's insights continue to inspire discussions about ethics, leadership, and the delicate dance between pragmatic decision-making and moral integrity. His philosophy challenges us to confront uncomfortable truths and recognize the inherent imperfections in both individuals and societies. What does this quote stir up in you? Do you find it still applicable to dilemmas we face today? – Reproduced
There are no comments for this item.