Realism is often accused of being immoral. Why?

Realism is widely criticized for its inability to

comprehend how important norms are in relations among states. Even worse, critics maintain
that realism itself often leads to amoral or even immoral state policies. But realists’ skepticism
about the role of norms is well-founded. Despite much rhetoric from statesmen about norms,
when power is at stake, norms invariably give way. (Desch, 2003) The inability to take risks
naturally results in a benevolence in which selfish advantages must be quite apparent, and in
which therefore the moral and redemptive quality is lost. Power, rather than norms, is the
predominant concern of states because, unlike civil society, international relations remains like
Hobbes’ state of nature where life is ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short’. Given the
anarchic nature of international relations, critics of realism can point to very few cases where,
when push comes to shove, power and interests have not trumped norms in shaping state
behavior. (Desch, 2003)

Just my two cents, it really depends what kind of perspective the person is looking from. How
does a normal person see realism? Let's assume that this "person" is very religious, from that I
can also assume that his/her opinion about realism is that realism is immoral. Because
according to realists, they hold that moral facts are independent of any beliefs or thoughts we
might have about them. What is right is not determined by what I or anybody else thinks is right.
It is not even determined by what we all think is right, even if we could agree. I see realism as a
normal phenomenon, it is a natural response of a nation since life is full of uncertainty and
nobody likes uncertainty right? The concept of it being immoral and moral is subjective, but I
don't think it's either one of them. We cannot put the idea of good and bad to it, why do I think
so? Since naturally humans are greedy and we cannot change that fact, everybody is greedy
but in different sorts of things.