【１】さて十九世紀の進行のうちに、自然科学がものすごい勢いで発達し、社会のあらゆるものをこれが動かすこととなるにつれて、科学精神は歴史をもとらえずにはおかなかったのであります。そして歴史は歴史科学と呼ばれることになります。【２】近代科学の開祖であるデカルトは、歴史をあまり重視しなかった。それは近代科学を歴史的制約の外に純粋に発展させるために必要な態度であったのですが、ここでは人間の知識ないし思想は二つにはっきり分かたれ、一方に厳密な自然科学があり、他方に文学があって歴史は後者の中に入れられていたのであります。【３】ところが、その後歴史は歴史科学の名の下に文学の世界から科学の世界に移るのであります。そこでは歴史はもはや過去の再現ではなく、一定の法則による過去の理論的構成であろうとし、また、自然科学がだんだん細かい分野に分かれると同じように、歴史も何々史、さらに何々における何々の研究というふうに細分化される。【４】その各々は全体をとらええぬかもしれぬが、それぞれの研究の成果は客観的な真理であるから、あたかも自然科学における一々の発見のように、後から来るものはそれを踏み台として先に進むことができる。かくして蓄積された厳密な史料によって全歴史がいつか構成されて成立する、というふうに楽観的に考えられたのだと思います。【５】そしてそうした科学的歴史は個人というものの価値を社会の中に埋没させる傾向を生じました。自然科学では蟻とか狼とかの発生・進化を環境に即して研究するが、蟻や狼の心理や個性（もしそういうものがあるとしたらの話ですが）を黙殺する。【６】そうした科学をモデルとする以上、歴史における個人の軽視ということは当然であったといえます。
　ところで、歴史家が自然科学者のように自我を殺して、自分が歴史的世界に生きる人間であることを忘れ去って、歴史を研究し記述することが果たしてできるかどうか。【７】細部については、それは可能でありましょう。例えば、関ケ原の戦いに家康がどこから引き返して、どこで何日滞在し、何日かかって戦場に着いたかというようなことは古文書（こもんじょ）その他によって、厳密に決定することができ、また万一不正確な点があれば訂正もできます。【８】しかし、実はそういう仕事は考証家の仕事で歴史ではない。そういうデータが無限に集まれば自ずと歴史が出来上るのではないのです。歴史家はそれらを集めて歴史を書くのですが、関ケ原の役の意義を考えるにはその種の世界観がなくてはできず、つまり、史料の統一には史観というのが∵なければ成立しません。【９】そうすれば必ずそこに歴史家の主観が出てくるので、もしもまったく純粋な精神というようなものの持主があったとしたら、歴史など書かない、また書けもしないだろうと思われます。そもそも歴史事実の選択ないしとらえ方にも、その歴史家の史観は働くのであります。【０】もちろん、愛国心に作用されたり、伝統文化を偏愛したりして、その史観が何ほどか曇るといったことも起こりえましょう。しかし、こういうことは避けがたいことで、もしこれを恐れていたならばデータの採集ないし小さな特殊研究以外に出られないことになります。クローチェは、歴史家が主観を抑えることは、いわば禁欲であって不能であってはならぬといいましたが、味わうべき言葉だと思います。学問とは冷静な、計量された冒険なのであります。
　こうした素朴な客観主義の歴史観を根底から揺り動かしたのは、最近の物理学、歴史がモデルとした自然科学そのものの基本をなす物理学の進歩であって、その物理学が素朴な客観主義ないし決定論を棄てねばならなくなったことであります。対象は研究者がたんに自我を殺して無私的に見れば見えるようなものではなくて、研究者がそこに操作を加えることによってはじめてとらえられるものである、とされるのであって、「研究者は彼が研究するところのプロセスの中に押し入る」、そしてこのことは自然科学研究についても歴史研究についても共に正しい、とエドガー・ヴィントはいっています。だからディルタイのいうように、歴史家は自己を脱却し、あらゆる時代に合一するようなことは可能で、もしそんなふうに現在から脱却しうる純粋な精神というようなものがあったら、その精神は歴史をとらえようとはしないでありましょう。この点、ヴァレリーの言葉は意味深く読まれます。「歴史の真の性格は歴史自体に参与するということである。過去の観念が一つの意味を持ち、また一つの価値を形成するのは、自分のうちに未来への情熱を見出す人間にとってのみである。」

（桑原武夫「歴史と文学」による）

A speaks against the proposal.
"Look here, the question of whether states can behave morally toward one another is not one that has been neglected, nor is it an open question. Many great thinkers have worked on it and have concluded that for various compelling reasons, the concept of morality or ethics simply does not enter into behavior between states. If every nation were willing to be Mr. Nice Guy, and if all nations had comparable values and a similar stage of advancement, then there might be a way for them to get together and work out laws, to which all would agree to be bound. But that clearly is not possible now. Note that it was tried, even in our century, with the League of Nations, but that proved a hopeless failure -- a real joke.
"You have to realize that nations are by definition selfish. Sometimes their actions seem justifiable: they may need to get at the resources of other nations as a matter of survival. Or, they may just be expansionist for expansion's sake. This seems to be a human trait, perhaps based on the search for glory. In order to guard against the inevitable rise of Napoleonic types, nations have traditionally formed balances of power, in which one powerful nation may gather several smaller nations around itself in an alliance against the dominant rival.
"It also has to be admitted that a strong nation can more or less do what it wants to, to a weak nation. Many times in history strong nations have exploited or even destroyed weak nations. This is a fact of life, having to do both with human selfishness and with the structure of the world. Because of it, by the way, a leader who takes a pacifist stance wiI1 not win any praise for this moral gesture. If he doesn't keep his nation prepared militarily he is actively tempting aggressors to attack.
"Besides the points I've made so far, which are more or less morally neutral, there are also reasons why it is positively a good thing that nations do not have a moral relationship with one another. The first reason is the importance of national or cultural independence. Only when all the sovereign nations agree that the prime rule is for each to mind its own business, can each one set about performing its functions as it wishes. If you allowed anyone who thinks he knows best to interfere in the affairs of other countries there would be chaos. You'd also hear plenty of goodwill rhetoric being used to cover up the selfish motivations of the intervening power.
"So, it's reasonable policy for all statesmen to form a binding agreement that they won't criticize each other's domestic affairs. At times this may mean that a people suffering from brutality or even genocide will not be saved by the outside world. But apparently people don't want to save their fellow men if it is inconvenient. Experience shows that an individual who sees an individual suffering feels compelled to help, but not so a nation. Groups are simply less moral than individuals, even if they are composed of individuals. Why this should be so is a mystery, but there you are.
"A second good reason for keeping "morals" out of international affairs is that some nations would get so morally worked up about erasing evil that they would never stop fighting. Or they may insist on the unconditional surrender of an enemy. Nations are also notorious for thinking that their culture is better than any other. It's obvious that each of the two superpowers thinks its ideology is pure and right, and the other's is sinful. If the superpowers had gone to war over this, the whole human race might have been wiped out. Note that in fact leaders in both the United States and the Soviet Union react according to events rather than act according to ideology, on the world stage. Leaders know how the game must be played and ideals are not part of this game. If you were in office, you'd learn it quickly, too, and you'd stop thinking about the morality of international relations.
"In short, people's natural instinct may tell them that something wrong or unfair is going on, internationally, but there's really not much that can be done about it. Whereas when a member of domestic society engages in criminal behavior his neighbors can call the police, in the international arena there is no authority to resort to -- each nation must look after itself. Nations and their relative strengths are the final determinant of who gets away with. what. I assure you, this is reality."
B speaks for the proposal.
"Rubbish! You say it's not appropriate to apply the concept of morality to international activities, but I ask you how it is possibIe that any such activity -- which may affect the welfare of millions of people -- could be exempt from moral concern. If you and I were two cave men standing here talking I could see how it might be possible for us to treat morality as some curiosity that could be dispensed with. But we are both products of Western civilization, so we tend to think of all human affairs as subject to moral judgment. Moreover, we are products of the modern world wherein the behavior of a government is thought to be subject to the wishes and approval of the people. Indeed we look upon the defining of the rights of the individual -- human rights -- as our own major cultural achievement.
"At least partly, our belief in human rights comes from a belief in human equality. All members of the human race have some things in common. True, there is much cultural variation in behavior, but basically people like and dislike the same things. For instance, people like to bring up their children in good health, and they don't like to have their property stolen. All of this similarity gives rise to fairly universal laws. For this reason it seems to me that a general law prevails, and that nations are subject to it as well as individuals. An example would be that it is wrong for one nation to steal from another, just as it is wrong for one individual to steal from another.
"Of course I recognize that people act not only as individuals, but as members of groups. Group life is an important reality and I'll allow that groups have some rights, such as to try to survive and to practice their culture. But since there are many groups, and their interests may conflict, they should make efforts to compromise. The golden rule seems to be the conclusion that reason leads to. Groups can recognize other groups as having similar human wants and needs, and even "rights"- as themselves. This is not such an unrealistic proposal. Consider the Geneva Conventions. Here each nation has recognized, for example, that all wounded soldiers are in the same boat. So, mechanisms have been established to protect medical stations on the battlefield -- something that a skeptic may have said could never happen.
"I think we need to admit that there is a direction to history. The whys and wherefores of international morality are not a function of a static structure of the world, nor of a fixed human nature. We should look at what is actually happening. On the one hand, interests are able to become more organized over time, as we see in the concentration of wealth and technological knowhow. At the same time values are able to become more organized and more "rationalized." Note how ecologists have made the public aware, in the last generation, of the priority of clean air and water -- something that could have been ignored if interests were the only factor that commanded power. I think that much of the argument that goes on, pretending to deal with the national interest as against that of the individual, or humanity as a whole, has instead to do simply with interest against value.
"In short, I do not buy your story that international morality is a nonsubject. It simply does not ring true to me. There cannot be a category of human affairs which defies moral consideration."

ethics 倫理
the League of Nations （国際連合の前身である）国際連盟
genocide 集団殺害
superpowers 超大国（この討論は冷戦終結前に行われた）
the Geneva Conventions 傷病兵の保護や捕虜の待遇等に関するジュネーブ諸条約