The Ethos of Survival Makes Sense

The article by Louiza Odysseos about the ethos of survival makes some very good and valid points about ethics in IR. Odysseos focuses on the views of Hobbes in relation to the nature of man. Hobbes believed that the nature of man drive him to seek power and that this quest for power is caused by a lack assurance of his survival. This is where the state comes into play and provides that security of life for individuals. Odysseos calls this security “man’s natural right” and that it is “his responsibility to himself to ensure that he does survive.” So by trusting the state with this responsibility it becomes the ethical code of the state to protect the right to life of its citizens first and foremost. I agree with this analysis because it is consistent with the actions and inactions of states. States fight wars for their own interests and rarely if ever take any kind of serious action to protect the right to life of others. By serious action I mean by relying on more than a UN peacekeeping force with its hands tied to protect the lives of others. War by its very nature supports this analysis because when a country goes to war with another country it does not take into account the right to life of the citizens of the other country. This analysis is also supported by the fact that the most popular contemporary IR theoretical standpoints, realism, liberalism, functionalism, and contructivism, do not try to claim that states act selflessly in support of other states and their citizens. IR theories like idealism that try to go there are unsuccessful because altruism is not part of the ethics of states. Not that states do not ever give foreign aid or get involved in humanitarian endeavors, but states do not put in a serious effort motivated by the indelible right to life of the citizens of other states. If this were so states would not focus the majority of their resources towards the benefit of themselves. I think that this is why Odysseos connects this ethos of survival to realism, because whether we like it or not states are going to choose to protect themselves and their citizen before they act to protect other states and their citizens. It would be unethical for a state to put the citizen of other states first because it has a responsibility to the people that belong to it first.