马基雅维利的“进攻性现实主义”Steven Forde, “Varieties of Realism: Thucydides and Machiavelli,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 54, No. 2 (May 1992).Like Thucydides, Machiavelli begins with the causes of war to move to an exoneration of imperialism. Concerning the impulse to conquer, he says simply that “it is a very natural and ordinary thing to desire to acquire, and always, when men do it who can, they will be praised or not blamed….”(The Prince, University of Chicago Press, 1985, p. 14.) Machiavelli exonerates imperialism on the grounds of simple ambition, but he regards either ambition or fear and the security dilemma as sufficient to justify it. His general dictum is that “war may not be avoided but is deferred to the advantage of others” (The Prince, pp. 12-13). As the ancient Romans knew, threats are always imminent or forming on the horizon. The prudent state therefore attacks preemptively, at a time of its choosing, rather than waiting for the enemy. Just as good doctors recognize tumors when they are small and excise them early, the Romans forestalled threats before they became too powerful or too near (p. 12). Thus, they subjugated ever-widening circles of territory until no threats remained. The Romans conquered the world out of self-defense.Machiavelli’s analysis of international necessity extends the plea of self-defense to what would otherwise be called aggressive war, even to imperialism.…Moreover, the comparison to medicine indicates that Machiavelli considers his a “scientific” approach to international politics. Self-defense mandates imperialism because the physician Machiavelli can certify that threats are inevitable, making preemptive attack rational and justifiable….And the goal of political science in Machiavelli’s view is to take man’s fate out of the hands of chance, or to conquer fortune. The Romans attacked first and left nothing to chance. According to Machiavelli, the international environment not only justifies but demands this response from prudent states. (pp. 377-379)修昔底德vs. 马基雅维利THUCYDIDES’“TEMPERED”REALISM vs. MACHIA VELLI’S “THOROUGHGOING” REALISMSteven Forde helps identify Thucydides’moral stance by comparing his “tempered”views with Machiavelli’s “thoroughgoing” realism:The most thoroughgoing realist maintains that moral restraints have no validity in the arenaof international politics and, moreover, that morality is a fraud or an illusion in all areas ofhuman life. A more tempered realist holds that some moral strictures are applicable amongstates, but that these are far fewer and far weaker than those that apply in the domestic life ofstates. 11 Stephen Forde, “Classical Realism,” in Terry Nardin and David R. Mapel, eds., Traditions of International Ethics….T his is to say that thoroughgoing realism, while perhaps a benign theory when placed in discerning hands, is also vulnerable to abuse. Realism of the Athenian or Machiavellian kind, when used explicitly as a justification for action, can easily become a justification for excess. Thucydides’ realism, by contrast, is pessimistic about the moral dimension of human nature, especially the efficacy of morality in the international arena. It also realizes, however, that human beings can and occasionally do rise above the lowest common denominator. This is not only often the prudent thing to do, but also the course that carries the most honor….Thucydides shows us that the Athenians’type of thoroughgoing or fundamentalist realism is immoral and inherently dangerous, not just to its victims but to its proponents. The Melians’disaster is followed by the internal political chaos and the eventual military defeat of Athens. “The city’s frank realism ultimately led Athenians to believe that no moral restraints applied to them even as citizens, and private self-interest and factious strife eventually prevaliled over the common good in the domestic life of the city.”2….The Thucydidean leader would recognize situations in which necessity dictated actions that would otherwise be considered immoral, but he would be wise enough to choose the more ethical route when possible, understanding the relationship between communal stability and international security. 3The Thucydidean leader need not be (although, to the extent he can, he may be) so much concerned with moral or noble actions for their own sake, but with his recognition of the ramification of clearly immoral actions both at home and abroad. He will avoid foreign adventures for personal aggrandizement both because of the type of politics such actions will foster within his country, and because such adventures are likely to waste resources making those unavailable when they are needed most. He will exercise prudent moderation. This is the type of moderation urged surreptitiously by Diodotus….To the extent that morality and expediency can coincide. As we have seen in the Melian Dialogue, those who are too focused on justice, morality, and piety are not well equipped for survival in the international realm. Those who are too focused on their supposedly compelling passions, however, are also not well equipped for survival. This is the key to understanding the moral dimension of Thucydides’ minimalist realism, which lies somewhere between Athens and Melos.Laurie M. Johnson Bagby, “Thucydidean Realism: Between Athensand Melos,” in in Benjamin Frankel ed., Roots of Realism(London: Frank Cass & Co. 1996), pp. 189-191.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 64.2 Ibid., p. 73.3 ibid., p. 74.。
