In foreign policy, a modest acceptance of fate will often lead to discipline rather than indifference. The realization that we cannot always have our way is the basis of a mature outlook that rests on an ancient sensibility, for tragedy is not the triumph of evil over good so much as triumph of one good over another that causes suffering. Awareness of that fact leads to a sturdy morality grounded in fear as well as in hope. The moral benefits of fear bring us to two English philosophers who, like Machiavelli, have for centuries disturbed people of goodwill: Hobbes and Malthus.
In the realm of foreign policy, acknowledging the limitations of our desires can foster a sense of discipline instead of apathy. This mature perspective recognizes that our goals may not always come to fruition, reflecting a deeper understanding of human experiences. This notion aligns with the ancient idea that tragedies emerge not from a simple conflict of good versus evil, but from competing goods that can lead to suffering. Such awareness cultivates a solid moral framework influenced by both fear and hope.
The interplay between fear and morality is exemplified in the thoughts of renowned philosophers like Hobbes and Malthus, whose ideas have challenged the goodwill of society. Their concepts, similar to those of Machiavelli, suggest that grappling with the darker aspects of human nature and existence can lead to a more profound comprehension of moral issues in politics. Ultimately, a blend of fear and hope can uphold a resilient ethical position amidst the complexities of leadership in international affairs.