International Ethics
John Baylis
Chapter – 11
Table of Contents
Introduction
- The field of ethics is defined as ‘The science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty’ (Oxford English Dictionary).
- Since humans began gathering into social groups, they have faced the issue of how to treat outsiders, with most communities drawing moral distinctions between insiders and outsiders.
- Many communities and individuals have not made these distinctions absolute, offering hospitality, aid, and charityto strangers they encounter.
- International ethics is the study of the nature of duties across community boundaries, focusing on how members of bounded communities (mostly nation-states) should treat outsiders and strangers, and whether such a distinction is morally right.
- Two key questions in international ethics:
- Should outsiders be treated the same as insiders (i.e., should outsiders be treated as moral equals?)?
- How can this treatment of outsiders as equals be achieved?
- International ethics grapples with two conditions:
- International anarchy: a practical challenge where self-interest is often reinforced over altruism, making it harder to achieve cooperation.
- Moral pluralism: a challenge both practical and ethical, as deciding which ethics apply and whether there are universal moral rules is itself a dilemma.
- Globalization forces a re-examination of these challenges and raises three key perspectives:
- Cosmopolitanism: Humans are one moral community with universal rules applying to all.
- Realism: A collection of separate communities, each with their own standards and no common morality.
- Pluralism: A collection of separate communities with minimally shared standards.
- Most thinkers on international ethics fall somewhere on the spectrum between cosmopolitanism, realism, and pluralism.
The ethical significance of boundaries: cosmopolitanism and its alternatives
- Most academic debates on international ethics draw from Western traditions of moral theory, particularly deontological and consequentialist ethics, with Kantianism and utilitarianism being significant.
- Deontology focuses on human duty or obligation and emphasizes rules that are always right for everyone to follow, regardless of the consequences.
- Kantian approaches emphasize rules that can be universalized, agreed upon by everyone, and are the main traditions of deontological ethics in the international sphere.
- Consequentialist ethics judge actions by their outcomes. For example:
- Realism judges actions based on whether they serve the state’s interests.
- Utilitarianism judges actions based on their expected outcomes for human welfare, aiming for the greatest good for the greatest number.
- These ethical theories offer different ways of assessing action and deciding what is ethical.
- The central concern in international ethics is not just the theoretical distinctions but the conclusions drawn about the ethical significance of national borders.
- The distinction between cosmopolitan (universalist) and anti-cosmopolitan (communitarian or particularist) positions:
- Cosmopolitans (including deontologists and utilitarians) argue that morality is universal, and national bordersare morally irrelevant.
- Anti-cosmopolitans argue that national boundaries provide important ethical constraints, including:
- Realism, which sees self-interest and survival as the only viable ethics due to international anarchy and sovereignty.
- Pluralism, which claims that anarchy does not prevent states from agreeing on minimal standards for coexistence.
- Both realism and pluralism hold that morality is local to particular cultures, times, and places, and ethics are derived from and meaningful only within specific cultures.
- Michael Walzer calls this “thick culture,” and realists and pluralists reject the idea of a single universal morality, considering it a cultural product with no global legitimacy.
- Realists and pluralists argue that cosmopolitanism is both impractical and undesirable due to the international state of nature and cultural pluralism.
- Cosmopolitanism, realism, and pluralism are reflected in current practices of states and international actors:
- Human rights are often claimed using universalist language, with some arguing that human rights should trumpstates’ sovereign rights, even by armed intervention.
- Some argue that national security requires states to do unthinkable things (e.g., torture or carpet bombing) that override conventional ethics.
- Others argue that enforcing human rights laws on states that do not share the cultural assumptions behind these laws is indefensible.
- Globalization brings these ethical positions into sharper focus by increasing interconnections between communities and making it harder to ignore the impact of actions like driving a car or buying clothes on the global environment and economy.
- The growing governance of the global economy raises ethical issues of fairness associated with the rules of international institutional structures.
- Globalization exacerbates ethical dilemmas by amplifying the effects that different communities and individuals have on each other, especially in terms of suffering of distant strangers.
- In a globalized world, the ethical framework of Westphalian sovereignty, which gives minor moral significance to the suffering of outsiders, seems inadequate.
- Communities are challenged to develop new principles or refine old ones to govern global interactions.
- The lack of a single standard of fairness and justice raises the question of whose principles should apply in a globalized world, making it an ethical challenge to define principles that everyone might agree on.