The argument that exists against realism is that realists even when concerned with international relations see issues in the black and white. The provide supremacy and importance to power which according to them justifies their behavior. As a result the economically influential and militarily powerful nations are able to operate as they wish while the weaker nation are subjected to devastation and control at the end of the more powerful states (Berenskoetter & Williams, 2007, p1).
This is clearly depicted in the stance that the United Statesalong with its alliance countries, waging war against Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 8 years while not taking into regard the devastation that is being caused by their actions on the people of the targeted nations. The ethics of the action are not considered by nations when employing international relations through a realist viewpoint and this does not justify protecting national security, power and national supremacy over the civil and ethical rights of others. The employment of realism in the international relations strategic decision making depicts how realists can be selective in terms of employing rational for their decisions. “Although it would be possible to accept (or reject) realism across the board, it is more common for philosophers to be selectively realist or non-realist about various topics: thus it would be perfectly possible to be a realist about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties, but a non-realist about aesthetic and moral value” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005)