And, dying so, sleep our sweet sleep no more.nDorothy L. Sayers once wrote thatn”The first life of any celebrity is nowadaysnaccepted as an interim document,”nand James Brabazon’s biography of her isncertainly that. It was written to straightennthe record before the “chaif-chewing”nexperts descended upon her. The biographynis an honest, though obviously incompletenaccount, appearing, with thenWishing Away HobbesnStanley Hoffman: Duties BeyondnBorders: On the Limits and Possibilitiesnof Ethical International Politics; SyracusenUniversity Press; Syracuse, NewnYork.nby Edward J. LynchnIhe study of ethics addresses questionsnabout the ways in which people cannlive together well. It looks to the exemplarsnof human conduct and holds outnthese models as guides for lesser mortals.nThe conclusion of ethical study is thenestablishment of principles of right conduct,nor, the definition of the good.nThe study of international politicsncommonly addresses other aspects of humannbehavior. It draws its exemplarsnfrom the abyss of human attitudes andnusually seeks suitable means of avoidingnthe worst deeds within the capacity ofnmankind. Because students of internationalnrelations haven’t often accuratelynpredicted the depths to which some ofntheir fellow men will sink, their writingntends to mMohc post-hoc descriptions ofnthe forms of conduct that we might likento avoid in the fiiture. Those who writenexpositions of “the ethics of internationalnpolitics” must, at some point, dealnwith the divergent tendencies inherentnin their subject. As much as they mightnprefer to avoid the task, the authors ofnDr. Lynch is a free-lance writer living innBaltimore.nauthor’s apologies, before Dorothy hadnwished one to be written. Her forebodingsnin this matter were primarily to sparenher son and her Church, and to wait untiln”grief and passion have died down, untilnemotion can be remembered in tranquility.n” She needn’t have worried about anyndamage to the Faith, and her son certainlynmay be proud of his ancestry. This personalnand compelling account of her lifenand work would assuage all her doubts.nthe best books attempting to synthesizenthe studies of ethics and international relationsneventually realize that they mustncome to terms with that prophet of ultimatengloom, Thomas Hobbes. Betternthan any other thinker, Hobbes describednin lurid detail the summum malum,nthat is, the greatest evil of humannconduct. He depicted that condition as anstate of nature, a war of each against all,nwhere human life is solitary, poor, nasty,nbmtish and short.nStanley Hoffman has served as a professornof international relations for manynyears, and he acknowledges the need tonconfront Hobbes as he commences thisnseries of lectures on the ethics of the internationalnorder. Early on, Hoffmannassures his reader, “Not at all times arenstates in a situation of war of all againstnall,” and, “Nor is survival the only goalnof states.” Having said as much, thenauthor dismisses the sage of Malmesburynand proceeds to preach his own standardsnof order in the current world.nProfessors commonly employ the alibinthat they are theorizing as an excuse tonabandon the leavening of responsibilitynthat is the focus of serious study. Hoffmannrepeatedly asserts that he is an”realist” and therefore recognizes thenlimits of day-to-day politics, constituenciesnand ideologies that prevent thenachievement of his “ideal” world. Nevertheless,nhe has labeled his discourse anquest for the possibilities of ethical internationalnpolitics. As a result, his vision ofnnnan ethical world permeates the text.nHoffman’s vision begins with the assertion,n”The purpose of moral action inninternational affairs ought to be to diminishnthe strain of the antinomies thatnweigh on the statesman and on the citizen.n… A morality of self-restraint entailsnsimply taking into account the existencenof the moral claims of others.” Stated innthis fashion, one suspects that what followsnwill include some guidelines aboutnwhat constitutes a valid moral claim, thatnis, a discussion of the ends of politics. Butninstead of a philosophic discussion of thenresponsibilities of real politics, the textnsoon degenerates into vacuous postulating.nThe author eschews any discussionnof the ends toward which moral politicsnought to be directed. Hoffman informsnhis reader that “no philosophy of historynprovides us once and for all with a tool kitnor a destination,” and he adds, “At presentnthere are incompatible codes of legitimacy.n… The only common code… isnnational egoism.” In effect, his verynpremises deny the possibility of philosophy,nof a reasoned discussion by whichnone can decide which code of legitimacynis more valid than others, since it providesnhigher standards for human conductnand a serious purpose for human existencenwithin an international order.nInstead, Hoffman offers empty slogans.nWe are told that the Israelis should benguaranteed claims to a state in the MiddlenEast, while we should concede thenlegitimate claims of the Arabs who surroundnthem. He passes over the matter ofnreconciling these competing claims, i.e.nthe fact that many of these Arabs believenthat their legitimate rights cannot benhonored as long as Israel exists. He alsonassures his reader that hard-and-fastnprinciples are very difficult because thenconditions of international politics are sonfrequently ambiguous. His example ofnambiguity is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,nthe very event that even JimmynCarter found a clarifying influence onnhis understanding of the character ofnSoviet conduct.nA serious ethical study provides somengroundwork to guide one toward theni^aHMH^SnSeptember 198Sn