Global Ethics Notes 40p strutturate.pdf

Global ethics notes - course of global ethics and restorative justice Etica Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Milano (UCSC MI) 39 pag....

Global ethics notes - course of global ethics and restorative justice Etica Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Milano (UCSC MI) 39 pag. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  Lecture one – Global ethics module What is global ethics? Global ethics is a new term that emerged over the past few decades and in exceptionally short time it has established as a recognized area of study and also as a distinct academic discipline. Since 2005, there is also an academic journal, especially focused on ethical issues at the global level: journal of global ethics. Global ethics issues are and can be very complicated. Before we begin to deal with this complex world, it is important to start from the ground. To simplify what is global ethics as follows; what means global and ethics. Global is generally used to signify something pertaining to the world as a whole. We can distinguish to two meanings: o On one hand, global signifies a worldwide scale of commonality. It is a sense of we- ness, or a sense of togetherness. In fact, we are now in a world where there are significant commonalities across political borders. All of us have a certain human rights, art. 6 of Universal declaration of human rights. This sense of commonality, belonging to human family, is very crucial. o On the other hand, global means a worldwide scale of interconnection. It is different, here the claim is that we are imbedded in the same human condition or same situation. The range of the effects of my actions become coextensive, consequently the actions of individuals or collective people affect and will be affected by actions of other people in other part of the world. Think of Greta Thunberg, this is clearly related to interconnection. Scholars may disagree about nature of globalization. It is an ongoing debate but there is humanity on this point, relevant for our course. If we assume that our lives are globally interconnected, there is interdependence between courses of actions, this has implication for human identity and justice or relations. It is at this interconnected level that ethical issues arise and that link between global and ethics is formed. What is ethics? Ethics derives from Greek, ethikos, meaning habit, custom or character. Consider now this definition by oxford dictionary of philosophy: ethics is the study of the concepts involved in practical reasoning: good, right, duty, obligation, virtue, freedom, rationality, choice. If we combine the ethimlology of ethikos and this definition is nothing that the ancient idea, that ethics is inquiry into the good life. What is a good life? How well we are living our lives, to live with and for each other. This overlaps with morality: the problem is that ethics and morality distinction has been subject to an intense debate. To put mind at ease, morality and ethics are interchangeable. (Always definition of ethics) Socrates ethical question: he remains a sort of enigma, inscrutable individual, considered one of the philosophers who changed our conception of philosophy. This is why we consider him. We have access to the idea of Socrates only because his pupil Plato, saw it as necessary to memorize his teacher by setting down on paper what he thought. “It is no ordinary matter that we are discussing, but the right conduct of life” (Plato, Republic, 352d). Philosophy is primarily defined in ethical terms. This is exactly what you can find in Plato’s Apology. In Plato’s apology, Socrates states that there is no ability to achieve good life. “The unexamined life is not worth living” (Plato, Apology, 38a5-6). A life worth living, involves reasoning. What is at stake in ethical reasoning in Socrates, is to formulate a line of argument, uncovered biases and to put our beliefs and values at risky situation of interpretations. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Socrates’ ethical reasoning: choosing death before dishonour. Plato, Apology, 28b. «Perhaps, then, someone might say, “By being silent and keeping quiet, Socrates, won’t you be able to live in exile for us?” “I much prefer to die having made my defense speech in this way than to live in that way. But, gentlemen, it is not hard to escape death; it is much harder to escape wickedness, for that runs faster than death. And now I, since I am slow and old, am caught by the slower runner, and my accusers, who are clever and quick, by the faster, wickedness. And now I shall go away convicted by you and sentenced to death, and they go convicted by truth of villainy and wrong.» In the light of this tragedy we can say that ethics is the study of what ends of action we are deliberately prepared to adopt. Deliberately: carefully discussed and comes from a Greek term, bolué, Council of people. Pericles, funeral’s speech, for the Athenians soldiers died at the opening battle of Peloponnesian war, 441. “We Athenians, in our own persons, take our decisions on policy or submit them to proper discussions: for we do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the worst thing is to rush into action before the consequences have been properly debated.”. there is no possibility to build a democratic society without exercising the ability to think and discuss. Global ethics is a field of theoretical enquiry that addresses ethical questions and problems arising out of the global interconnection and interdependence of the world. The relevant point is that discussing cannot be separated from seeking solutions. That is why global ethers cannot be philosopher. This module is strictly related to restorative justice. Also, we are dealing with real world issues, not abstract or metaphysical issues. Ethical claims don’t arise in a vacuum, they are always articulated in a political context. Global ethics issues in most cases take the form of ethical dilemmas. A dilemma occurs when you are confronted with two alternatives that can both lead to suboptimal outcomes, unpleasant scenario. The ethical dilemma: the agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions, the agent can do each of the actions, but cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure, no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do). Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. Example: ticking bomb scenario. Suppose there is a large bomb planted in a populated location. This goes off in the future, you have in custody someone who knows where it is but won’t share this info. There is no other source. Receiving this info would prevent the bomb from going off. Ask yourself, would it be legitimate to torture the person? Logical structure of the dilemma: you can either torture the person in custody or not. o If you torture, then you’ll have severe harm on one person but may receive info that prevent large number of deaths o If you don’t, large number of people will die. The point in general is that how we solve this case of the global ethics issues involves a consequence of the entire framework of the future of global governance. Global ethics is not abstract reasoning, but political reasoning about real world issues. The terrain of global ethics: global ethics issues such as international relations, foreign aid, humanitarian intervention, human rights, war, terrorism, torture, climate change, extreme poverty, other global inequalities. These issues can take the form of ethical questions. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Some pressing ethical questions: Who is responsible for ending poverty in the world’s poorest countries? Who is responsible for ending the suffering of refugees? Is it fair that industrialized countries agree to limit their carbon emissions while developing ones are allowed to increase theirs? Should I give money for humanitarian relief in conflict zones or will it do more harm than good? It is harmful to consider aid, charity? Or should we treat it as an obligation of justice or morality? Should I or my government end poverty at home before giving aid to the poor abroad? Characteristics of global ethics approach: Global in scope means that the sphere of concern of a global ethicist is always the globe. The area of ethical concern is not limited by national boundaries. Multidisciplinary meaning that for a global ethicist, there is no possibility to be an armchair philosopher because an ethicist must engage with experts of other disciplines, activists, policy makers… this requires more knowledge than standardly required for normal ethicists, but global must. Combines theory and practice, global ethics focuses on an appropriate method for moral reasoning which moves back and forward from the concrete and abstract connecting debate. Lecture 2 GEM– Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Feelings are crucial for ethical reasons, this passions for justice are important for political actions and to fight injustice. Passion for justice is crucial for global ethics, not to feel indignation against injustice would be unmoral. The importance of case studies for global ethics are undeniable, cases are designed to confront you with specific problems that do not lead themselves to easy solutions or answers, they help us to define our ethical position, develop arguments and to identify and resolve ethical dilemmas. Global ethics should be considered a practice base theory always related to global injustices. Cases like the real world often take the form of ethical dilemmas or disputes and that’s why we need debate, dialogue and we should be prepared to put our values at risk. Is there a right solution to a specific dilemma? Even the best solution still has some unsatisfactory consequences, an ethical dilemma is a choice between two risky alternatives so cases studies include ethical decision making rather than a correct answer furthermore not all solutions are acceptable from an ethical point of view, considering reclines or violation of specific rules should be considered unacceptable, if needed we have to change our views. This semester we will only study FGM and it will be covered from different angles. Gut reactions are really important in GE and they are useful to test about any presented issue, much of ethical reasoning is an attempt to test the ethical principles underlining gut reactions. According to Aristotle anger is the “righteous indignation” against violence ,it is morally relevant for GE and it is appropriate for ethical reasons. What is FGM? WHO’s definition: Female genital mutilation (FGM) compresses all procures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. Female circumspection is a misleading term, as it compares it to male circumcision despite the fact that for females it is much more invasive, during the 60s this Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) practice was opposed by the Feminist movement. Female genital cutting is another term in the middle of FGM and female circumcision. Standard classification of FGM FGM has been documented in 30 countries, mainly in Africa. The type of procedure varies with ethnicity and tradition, about 10% over ten million undergone type 3 FGM. What we need to do is to clearly state that FGM has no health benefits and it harms woman in many ways, there are particularly two types of problems: immediate complications and long-term consequences. In many places FGM is performed by medical equip due to the working belief that risks can be reduced thanks to medicalisation. In a 2016 an article wrote by Arora and Jacobs (two US gynaecologists) stated that FGM should be changed as this term is racist. They stated that this ritual should be not demonised and could be performed under the right medical conditions as it is strictly related to culture. Some reactions to this paper came from FGM survivors stating that there is no better alternative for FGM as it still causes the same psychological damage to victims and it is child abuse and as so a human rights’ abuse. Ruth Macklin stated that the purpose and point of this practice is always to control women, which is why the practice is still being carried on. Performing this medical ritual would deny that FGM is gender based violence, irrespective of the degree of harm caused, this practice is always a misogynous one and a violation of HR, what this debate demonstrate is that FGM is not only a medical issue but also an ethical one. Why FGM should be consider a GE issue? Because of the concept of human dignity. FGM is commonly justified by: Religion: The practice is said to be religious norms which according to WHO is completely wrong. Ethnicity: Some would say that FGM is sort of joyful rite of passing from childhood to adulthood, a necessary part of raising a girl and increase her chances of marriage. Studies show that where FGM is a social norm, pressure to be part of a community is a strong motivation to do the practice for many cultures marriage is not an option but a must for Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  survival, for a woman the consequences of being rejected by a community would be disastrous as it is their only way to achieve economic or social status but this patriarchal situation is not unchangeable, it is possible to imagine alternative forms of passages to womanhood that do not involve human rights’ violation. Controlling women sexuality: This misogynistic procedure looks to reduce woman’s sexual power and desire ensuring virginity before marriage, these women become a sort of sexual commodities, women are completely objectified. As global ethicists we have to empower women. Hygiene and aesthetics: The problem here is a serious ignorance, women are associated as unclean if they do not undergo the procedure and this is also associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty. FGM is definitely a GE issue, if we enter within the discussions about these justifications what is prevailing is human dignity. The meeting organised by UNICEF partner OIS Afrique works within the African communities to spread knowledge about FGM (there is no change without raising awareness) local organisations should play an important role in the process, the proportion of girls who undergo FGM decreases as their mother’s level of education increases, this is a difficult process of emancipation but it is essential that everyone from oppressed women to men participate in this revolutionary practice as subjects of change and transformation by not considering themselves as silent victims (in women cases) that is why education is extremely important. Change is possible and tradition should not be considered as indisputable. After receiving information people can change ideas. Public discussions gatherings in Kenya : It is important to reduce both supply and demand for FGM and societal dialogue plays a key role, we need to translate universal concepts such as “body integrity” into particular ones for each context. When women are free to express their views they put their beliefs at risk by engaging in discussion. Ancient Socratic dialogue can be compared to this as a way to test values and beliefs. The aim of global ethics is to provide answers to the dilemmas of globalisation, GE is not an attempt of a “one fits all” way of life, this dogmatic attitude is completely open to dialogue and changing our views not trying to achieve a perfect model for all, we need to love imperfection ,nevertheless GE results in a general bias towards vulnerable people , they should be considered our main problem. There is no possibility of imagining an ethical model without having political and ethical concern for vulnerable people. Lecture 3 GEM – recorded online – Universalism and Relativism Universalism and relativism overview of the debate: the term relativism is of recent coinage. Doctrines and position back to the beginning of the western philosophy. Consider for example the sophist Protagoras who is considered, by Plato for example, the first of relativism. He said, “Man is the measure of all things”. If man is the measure of all things, then moral norms and values are always either subjective or conventional. What follows is that relativism results in liberal tolerance and neutrality. The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me, the way things appear to you, in that way they exist for you. The problem is summarized in the book: if relativism was true, global would be incompatible with ethics. Because, all global ethics presupposes some form of universalism. For the ethical relativists, there are low universal moral standards. If ethical Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) relativism is correct, there is no common framework to solve moral disputes or reach agreement among members of different societies. Can we make global claims? This is an issue. The problem is that cultural relativism considers a moral universalist stands as arrogant and imperialistic. To say, universalism is perceived by relativists as a plan, a project to destroy diversity cultures and homogenize the world. Is this really the case? Is universalism a form of intolerant imperialism? This is not easy to answer. If universalism is only the justificatory rhetoric of western expansionism, the projection and the mask of an ethnocentrism extending over the all planet, the consequence is that global ethics is impossible. It is possible only if a dialogical form of universalism is possible. That is the only way to argue that some practices are better or worse according to the extent to which they are good or bad for human beings. Notice that dialogues is authentic if and only if it involves a common search for truth which is the typically Socratic definition of dialogue: truth is not an individual possession but is born among people collectively searching for it. As far as it is based on dialogue, universalism is not a form of cultural colonialism or intolerant imperialism. On the contrary, dialogical universalism urges tolerance. To summarize, there are two models of universalism: monological and dialogical. There is monological form which is clearly incompatible with global ethics. Monologism is based on individualism and a single authority who is self-centred, marginalising other voices. Consider now that there is a dialogical form of universalism with 3 fundamental features: A sense of normative commitment: dialogue is not just talking; dialogue is the capacity to potentially commit one set of norms and values that transcend socio cultural context Interpretative perspective-taking: it means the capacity to understand other perspectives from within his context of meaning Social self-reflexivity: capacity to gain critical distance from one-self-evident background assumptions. So, clearly, this model can be functioned as the basis for global ethics approach. Dialogical universalism involves pluralism. The monological universalism is a form of fundamentalism or imperialism, as said before. By its nature, this form of universalism denies pluralism. Because monologism is the position of those who maintain a system of prejudice against others, supporting actions of injustice. Relativists arguments are often used to criticize global ethics approaches. A good example to prove that morality is culturally dependent, it is taken from Herodotus Histories. Darius, a king of Persia, was intrigued by the variety of cultures encountered in his travels. He found out that an Indian tribe ate the bodies of dead people. The Greeks didn’t do that, they practiced cremation. Darius thought that a sophisticated understanding of the world must include an appreciation of such differences between cultures. That is why he decided to conduct a social experiment to illustrate the radical diversity of moral customs. When Darius was king of Persia, he summoned the Greeks, who happened to be present and asked them what they would take to eat their dead bodies. They would not do it for any money in the world. Later, he asked some Indians, what they would take to burn them. “When Darius was king of Persia, he summoned the Greeks who happened to be present at his court, and asked them what they would take to eat the dead bodies of their fathers. They replied that they would not do it for any money in the world. Later, in the presence of the Greeks, and through an Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) interpreter, so that they could understand what was said, he asked some Indians of the tribe called Callatiae, who do in fact eat their parents' dead bodies, what they would take to burn them. They uttered a cry of horror and forbade him to mention such a dreadful thing. [Herodotus, Histories 3.38] Relativism definition: Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. Consequently, it seems obvious to conclude that we are bound to be moral strangers to each other. No matter how long we meet, we are all incompatible. Ethnocentrism: judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture. It is also believing that your culture is superior than any others. The cartoon of the slides is saying: who are we to judge? Ethnocentrism is the most common form universalism can assume. Universalism, according to relativists is ethnocentrism in disguise. If you believe that some values are global, you are intolerant. Is universalism a projection of ethnocentric biases? Not at all. It is not necessarily so. Dialogical universalism is not only theoretical possible but also concretely feasible. The cultural relativist argument against universalism. The logical structure: Premise A: If there is an objective ground for judgments with respect to X, then different cultures will not make different judgments with respect to X. there could be a shared understanding of moral principles, but there should not be conflicting judgments among people. Premise B: Different cultures make different judgments with respect to X Conclusion: There is no objective ground for judgments with respect to X because different cultures make different judgements. It is a very powerful argument. But the question is: is this argument valid? The first objection against cultural relativism, the relativist conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise B. The fundamental mistake in the cultural relativist argument is that it attempts to derive a substantive conclusion about a subject from the mere fact that people disagree about it. Example: in some societies, people believed earth is flat. In others, earth is spherical. Does it follow from the mere fact that people disagree, there is no objective truth in geography? No. The fundamental mistake in the cultural relativist argument is that it attempts to derive a substantive conclusion by a subject from the mere fact that people disagree about it. The premise concerns what people believe. The conclusion however concerns what really is the case. So, cultural relativism proposes these arguments, but they are fallacious. It proves nothing. Four additional objections against cultural relativism: 1. Argument from values underlying practice: cultural relativism exaggerates differences between cultures, it confuses underlying values with application in practice. Eating fathers was right, they fought this preserved their bodies. Greeks believed that burning them was right. What follows is that both their actions were motivated by respect to the death person. Their actions are therefore based on the same moral value. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  2. Argument from moral experience: it is not of mere opinions; people think that what they are expressing is something actually true. Think of quarrelling, proving someone is wrong. If the two people didn’t have a shared standard, they couldn’t quarrel. 3. Argument from moral change or evolution: changes are for the better. Recently, most changes are progress. If cultural relativism is correct, can we think of this as progress? Progress means replacing things in a better way, but by what standard do we judge new ways as better? If old ways were in accordance with standard of that time, then cultural relativism would say it is a mistake to judge then by the standards of different times. 4. Argument from interrelatedness of cultures: as stated in the book, cultural relativism allows a sort of collection of different cultures with different moral codes that exist separately. Cultures may disagree but what is remarkable, almost all are engaged in the global debate. Moral communication is possible and then it is also possible that there are some shared values. Consider for example, human rights. Needless to say, our favorite case study, is female genital mutilation. Case study: FGM and the cultural relativist position: a cultural relativist can accept no grounds for criticizing a cultural value practice. In this view, if a culture deems FGM as important and valuable, then it is. Secondly, we should remember the cultural relativists caution about adopting our own cultural values and simply attempting to export them (moral colonialism). Relativist voice pro-FGM: “Feminist sisters insist on denying us this critical aspect of becoming a woman in accordance with our unique and powerful cultural heritage.”. “You don’t get to legislate your feelings of disgust or apprehension about the practices and preferences of others.” (Fuambai Sia Ahmadu). She argues that health risks are exaggerated. The anti FGM movement as worked to marginalize the voices of pro-FGM. According to Ahmadu, eliminating FGM is imposing external values to other countries. This is a relativist argument. What can be replied? The comparative argument (you do it, too!). “Western women are themselves paying huge sums of money to have various forms of female genital surgery, for aesthetic reasons, without being demonized by their own societies. And that in Africa it is done for highly powerful cultural reasons.” [Fuambai Sia Ahmadu]. There are a number of counterarguments: FGM is forced, whereas western is on consent. FGM is on young with no power to decide, also because of low education. Finally, FGM is unambiguously about male domination. Probably, there are a number of counterarguments. The important part is not the right or wrong of FGM: the point is that this can be discussed. Once this is discussed, a universalist dialogical framework has been presumed. Moreover, Ahmadu’s relativist claims has universalism inside it: her argument judges and compares different cultures. In that sense, relativist cannot be coherently maintained. Do we have the right to judge other cultures? “The charge of "colonialism" presumably means that the norms of an oppressor group are being unthinkingly assimilated, usually to curry favour with that group. That is not at all what is happening in the case of FGM. In the United Nations, in Human Rights Watch, in many organizations throughout the world, and in countless local villages the issue has been debated.” (Martha Nussbaum). Global ethics is based on this kind of debate, but not only this. Global ethics calls upon us to take action. FGM is unacceptable. Recap: Global ethics should be based on a dialogical form of univeralism. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  The cultural relativist argument, seen that it is fallacious. Debating FGM is necessary in order to maintain global ethics approach and it requires a universal framework discussion that is clearly dialogical. Lecture 4 GEM – The ethical toolbox: moral theories The ethical toolbox of global ethics consists in three tools: moral theories, political theories, rights- based theories. Why do we need an ethical toolbox? Because it is not enough to say for example “FGM is bad”. As Socrates says, we need to justify our choices, so toolboxes are helpful to manage dilemmas. Our toolbox however is not “one size fits all” so you have to come up to ideas, choices, approaches that you are prepared to adopt. Our first tool: moral theories. When dealing what’s the right thing to do we enter in the normative field of ethics. In this field of research, in this area, three main theories tend to dominate: consequentialism, deontology and virtue theory. Any ethical situation consists in an agent taking an action which produces an outcome. Whichever system of ethics one chooses, will have to deal with same elements. An agent, an action, an outcome. Although, different approaches prioritize different aspects. It is impossible to say which is the best theory. The answer depends on you. The choice of the best approach depends also on the circumstances or dilemma we are considering. o Consequentialism: as its name suggest, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. Whether an act is morally rights, depends only on the consequences of that act. What matters is the result. What action should I do? It is a cost-benefit analysis. What is at stake is choosing the best choice in terms of expected utility. All other factors are irrelevant. There are three types of consequentialism: they share the fact that it is the consequences of actions which determine their moral worth. i. Ethical egoism: consequences just for me ii. Group consequentialism: consequences just for my group, nation, fellow… iii. Utilitarianism: is one of the subgroups of theories that maintain that the rightness or wrongness depends on the action’s consequences. What sets utilitarianism apart is that it maintains that we must consider consequences for everyone. The fathers of this theory are Bentham and Stuart Mill. It can be summarized by saying that the correct social and moral goal is to make as many people as possible as happy as possible. This general injunction is a theoretical elaboration of Bentham’s dictum “the greatest good for the greatest number”. Mill produces another famous principles called “the principle of impartiality”. “everybody to count for one, nobody for more than one”. Everyone’s happiness counts the same. Everyone ought to be given equal way. The question is then, what is happiness? we have three possible answers, corresponding to 3 subtypes of utilitarianism: 1. Mental state theory: “is happiness the same as pleasure?”. According to Bentham, yes. For him, morality is about increasing or maximizing pleasure and decreasing or minimizing pain. What is essential: pleasure is defined by Bentham as a mental state, that is why utilitarianism can be considered a mental state. who would not agree that reducing pain should be heart of any moral theory? Secondly, maximization: technical term used by Bentham to indicate the key rule of decision. It consists in seeking the max pleasure at the lowest cost. Thirdly, Bentham focuses only on the total sum of pleasure rather than on Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  achieving an equal division of pleasure across people. Bentham’s idea neglects the question of who gets the benefit of pleasure. This is called the aggregate aspect and is obviously a weak spot. Is happiness the same as pleasure? In 1974 Nozick criticized the idea that pleasure is the only good by testing our intuition via this experiment called the experience machine. Nozick asks to suppose there was a machine that’d give you any experience you want. Should you plug into this machine for life? While there, you don’t know you there, you think that this is happening. Would you plug in? he believes that plug in is a sort of suicide. Humans would betray themselves or others by plugging in. this experiment teaches us that there are things which matter to us more than simply having certain experiences. What we see as happiness isn’t identical with to mental state. 2. Desire satisfaction theory: is happiness getting what you want? The focus is on desires and preferences. Happiness is the attainment of those desires. This is particularly popular among economists. This doesn’t focus on mental state and the advantage here is to rely on a standard with which we can measure utility. This standard is the fulfillment of people’s desire. Satisfaction is not equivalent of pleasure. To be satisfied means to have one’s desire, demands fulfilled regardless whether pleasure accompanies. It also has disadvantages: basing happiness on people’s desire leads to a challenge. People can be happy if their desires are fulfilled whatever the content of those desires. Some people’s desires are evil or disgusting. Do we really want to call these people happy? Some would say yes because who are we to judge others. For a global ethicist, this kind of content neutrality is dangerous. Moreover, most of us are not prepared that there are no substantive elements. As ethicists, we want to be happy for the right reason. 3. Objective theory: is happiness having what you need? According to this theory, certain things are good or bad for people whether or not these people would want to have or avoid bad things. What it is at stake are goods without which we would not flourish or realize our self. It is a sort of objective list of goods. This point is supported by the anthropoglist Maslow. He organized an hierarchy: food, shelter, breathing are the bottom. Then, security, family, confidence, spontaneity. Some says that this is simplistic. Is it really possible to set human’s good list? It reflects the ethos of an individualist ethical professor. All three subtypes have issues. Despite the difficulties in determining happiness, utilitarianism remain essential because captures important ethical insights. The consequences of our actions are crucial in determining what is the right thing to do. Advantages and drawbacks of utilitarianism: Advantages: impartiality (all human beings must be morally important) and happiness must be maximized and measured. Disadvantages: the ends really do justify whatever means (unlike deontological theories – see lecture 5). It fails to protect individuals – see transplant case. “Imagine yourself to be a surgeon, a truly great surgeon. Among other things you do, you transplant organs, and you Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  are such a great surgeon that the organs you transplant always take. At the moment you have five patients who need organs. Two need one lung each, two need a kidney each, and the fifth needs a heart. If they do not get those organs today, they will all die; if you find organs for them today, you can transplant the organs and they will all live. But where to find the lungs, the kidneys, and the heart? The time is almost up when a report is brought to you that a young man who has just come into your clinic for his yearly check-up has exactly the right blood- type and is in excellent health. Lo, you have a possible donor. All you need do is cut him up and distribute his parts among the five who need them. You ask, but he says, “Sorry. I deeply sympathize, but no.” Would it be morally permissible for you to operate anyway?” Utilitarianism is willing to sacrifice an individual’s right if doing so leads to greater happiness. there is nothing that must be protected. It is like this that Bentham rejected basically human rights as fictitious entities. There are no such things as rights that always apply in every circumstance. For utilitarian, FGM is not intrinsically right or wrong. What matters in utilitarian terms are outcomes. There is a specific method of counting the amount of pleasure and pain that would be caused by different actions: it is called felicific calculus based on duration, intensity, propinquity, extent, certainty, purity and fecundity. It seems likely that utilitarian cost-benefit calculation would identify FGM as morally wrong but there is a more pertinent question related to a potential weakness in utilitarian argument against FGM. The second utilitarian principles “everyone should be considered impartially and in proportion to utility”. We have to take into account also the people who support and take benefit from the practice (parents). What if all these beneficiaries of FGM outnumber the women who suffer the burdens of the ritual? Utilitarian would support FGM if the benefits to society outnumber the utility to individual who undergo this procedure. This is a serious drawback of this theory. FGM case shows that the utilitarian goal of maximizing aggregate welfare, total utility has little to do with justice. Lecture 5 GEM – The ethical toolbox: moral theories (part two) What is our toolbox composed of? First tool: moral theories o Consequentialism o Deontology o Virtue theory Second tool: political theories o Cosmopolitanism o Nationalism o Political realism Third tool: rights-based theories o Global human rights o Critiques of the rights framework Deontology or “duty ethics” holds that some choices cannot be justified by their effects; what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm (from Stanford encyclopedia). What matters is the respect for the duty. The word deontology comes from Greek “deon - duty” and science, logos. So, deontological theories present acts as right or wrong in respect to the consequences. It is easy to see why they stand in opposition to consequentialist. The Kantian theory Batman, why doesn’t he kill the Joker? If batman was a utilitarian: killing joker would prevent him to kill others, so make things easier and safer. But batman rule is no killing. It is because killing makes him bad as others, killing is wrong. Batman’s answers are a Kantian one: he cannot. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Kantianism is like utilitarianism. It can be applied to every situation. Kantianism prescribes a criterion of rightness for all moral agents at all times. However, Kantianism and utilitarianism have different was to decide right or wrong. Desirable ends cannot justify bad means (such as killing one person to prevent killing more – the ticking bomb scenario). For Kant, morally right acts are those that quite simply one ought to do, irrespective of anything else; to use Kant’s word, they are categorical. It means absolute, unconditional. Categorical imperative means follow and obey unconditionally without exceptions. What does irrespective mean? It means that a moral action isn’t based upon feelings or reward. It is one based on a sense of this is what I ought to do. We must be careful not to confuse the categorical imperative with the hypothetical. Hypothetical are the things we ought to do if we want a certain outcome – if I want to pass the exam I must study. They are not moral commands; they don’t apply to anyone and aim at personal wellbeing. Categorical are moral commands and are universal. They don’t depend on anything, especially on our desire. They are moral because they are duty for duty sake. The categorical imperative: “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant). How does it work? A maxim is the rule or principle on which we act. Example: I ought to kill people to obtain wealth, essentially how the capitalists think according to Marx. Ask yourself whether your maxim could be willed by all rational agents. This is what Kant calls the universalization test: is this possible? The idea is: treat other people as you’d like to be treated. The “ends not only mean criterion” – a second formulation of the categorical imperative. We should treat people with fundamental respect. “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never only as a means” (Kant) The imperative prohibits the treatment of persons as mere instruments for our own purpose. That is in a manner which violates their dignity. Unacceptable way – never use a person merely as a means or instruments toward attaining other goals. For example if I take a taxi, the driver uses me to earn an income. There is nothing immoral here. If we both give valid consent to the terms of transactions then everything’s fine. We have a problem if I make a false promise to pay him. This is manipulating. We should be self-aware to treating someone as an end when we treat him as a mean. This theory very relevant, it clearly sets a standard measure against commodification. Acceptable way – when you are using people as a means, you have to respect that they have ends of their own. Advantages and disadvantages of Kantianism for Global ethics Advantages: Kant claims that there are some actions that are always wrong. A person should not be used as an instrument, a person is beyond price. It respects persons. Disadvantages: It reduces morality to rules: morality is to follow rules because they are rules Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  It sometimes conflicts with moral experience (see the inquiring murderer case). Suppose a friend tell us he’s going home to hide from a murderer. The murderer comes and asks where he is. Then we shouldn’t tell the truth. Kant is quite clear: no maxim for lying seems capable of passing the universalization path because it would damage all promises and contracts in a world of liars, the concept of promise keeping is meaningless and consequently the social system would break down. Don’t lie for Kant. Kant won’t be of any help to us with ethical problems and dilemmas. Kantianism and FGM: in this case, it provides a clear framework to combat this practice. Given the negative health outcomes, it is really hard how you could universalize this practice. Kantian argument is radical. “End not only means criterion”: you should treat others as ends and never as means to an end only. We know that FGM due to its patriarchal and sexist nature is clearly using women as instrument to an end. This is why FGM is a way to control women. Virtue theory is person rather than action based: it looks at the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of particular actions. Morality depends on our character. What matters is the whole of a person’s life, not what we do, but the kind of people we are. A virtue ethicist is likely to give us a moral advice: act as a virtuous person would act in your situation. The focus is the internal motivation to act morally rather than a mere compliance with the universal formula, either the principle of utility or the categorical imperative. Agent centered morality: a good person is someone who acts for the sake of the highest good. What is the highest good? It is happiness. What is happiness? This is all according to Aristotle. The Aristotelian conception of happiness: acting fairly. Happiness: doing well and living well (according to virtues) with and for others. In order to be happy, we must act fairly, and it involves a political attitude. Aristotle treats happiness as an activity, energy, a dynamic lifelong process of using one’s capacity creatively. For him, justice is… Justice is a virtue in the most complete sense, since the use of it is that of complete virtue; and it is complete, since he who possesses, it can use it also towards another and not only for himself. What is virtue? For Aristotle, it is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean. It is a disposition to find the right mean and this means acting “at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way”. We must look to what suits the occasion. Advantages of virtue theory: It is a context sensitive: it stresses the complexity of moral life. A virtuous person knows how to act in a particular situation without having to appeal to moral duties. It permits appropriate partially: all ethical systems are based on the premise that people are moral equals. But for an Aristotelian, this principle is too abstract. Often, we are partial to friends and family members and the resolution is that the issue for when to be partial depends on the issue in question. We should love friends and family members (partiality) and be benevolent to others (impartiality). So the conflict disappears. What is interesting is that this partiality and context sensibility result in a compatible universalist concern. Finding ways of combining intimate caring for particular others, with humanitarian caring about others. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Disadvantages: it is difficult to apply globally. They vary with cultures. Conflicts of virtues are difficult to negotiate (see again the inquiring murderer case). Virtue theory and FGM: Argument based on Eudaimonia (happiness): for Aristotle actions tend to promote the fulfilled life, life with others, in fairness. Actions which arise are right, those who don’t, are wrong. Does FGM contribute to good life? FGM is practiced to control women’s sexuality. Sexism inhibits women’s flourishing. Women should have the ability to choose to have sexual pleasure, so it’s not up to others to remove it. Argument based on care: care for Aristotle is a virtue since it is essential to human flourishing. He argues that friendship is necessary for self in community actualization. As for FGM, we can say that this practice is clearly embedded in systems in which are denigrated, and they need to be challenged. From a virtue ethic perspective is crucial to engage in the framework of FGM. Annex lecture 5 – The trolley problem. It consists in different hypothetical scenarios developed by Philippa Foot in 1967. Each scenario presents an extreme environment that tests the ability and intuition of the subjects. First scenario: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person tied up on the sidetrack. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the sidetrack where it will kill one person. This is the lesser evil. Second scenario: There is a runaway trolley headed toward five people again. Only, this time, you are not in the train yard next to a lever. You are on a bridge, watching the events from above the tracks. There is a very large man next to you. You realize that, if you push him off the bridge and down onto the tracks below, the trolley will hit and kill him, but his body is so large that it will stop the trolley before it reaches the five endangered people. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people. Push the large man off the bridge, so that he dies, but the five others are saved. The author suggest that the difference is that in the fat man scenario one intends to harm the fat to save others. In that scenario, it is necessary to use the fat man as a tool in order to save others. Using him will kill him. Meanwhile in the first scenario one doesn’t intend to harm at all but sees it as a side effect. This means we don’t require in the first scenario the death of the one to save the five. Furthermore, it is much worse morally to harm someone as a mean to an end rather than an unintended death. In the first part it is permissible even for a Kantian because one’s primary intension is to save the five and this is acceptable. The death of the one on the side track is a double effect and the principle that Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) intending harm rather than foreseen it is the doctrine of the double effect. There are two duties of non-maleficence. The first the duty not to harm as a tool and also not to harm others as foreseen. Lecture 6 GEM - Second tool of out ethical toolbox: Political Theories Today’s lecture is in particular about three aspects: cosmopolitanism, nationalism, and political realism. We are going to analyze the relevance of political theories for global ethics but first, the overview of today’s topics. For the purpose of our course we can enlist A, B, C as the main approaches in political theory. First of all, Cosmopolitanism: the cosmopolitan idea that all humans are equal and deserve equal respect is one that receives intuitive support and not surprisingly, many global ethicists are cosmopolitan. Nationalists tend to argue that fellow nationals and compatriots have special obligations to one another in virtue of their membership in the national community. Nevertheless, nationalism is not the same as the current trend to what protectionism and building walls (as Trump declared during his presidency speech in June 2015, the promise to build a wall), nationalism is not merely or primarily exclusionary and, but it is a claim for inclusion and integration. Finally, political realism: realism remains central to public discourse about world politics today and therefore, it is essential to understand strengths and weaknesses or realist arguments. Consider that realism is the arch enemy of global ethics because political realism holds the view that IR fall outside the bound of morality so realists think states to be interacting in a global condition similar to Hobbesian state of nature, motivated ultimately by considerations of power and security. What political theories have to do with GE? Political theories are centrally concerned with questions of justice (what claims can persons legitimately make upon one another or upon the state?). Therefore, political theories are like maps which help us to orientate ourselves effectively within the global world. Obviously, there are different conceptions of this idea of justice, that is different understandings of what it means to treat individuals with equal consideration. But moral theories and political theories are not directly parallel. We can speak of moral theories as theories of human conduct concerned primarily with individuals and by extensions groups. On the contrary, the focus of political theory is our collective arrangements, our practices, policies, institutions learned to live together in justice and dignity. So, we can summarize the main political question as follows. What political frameworks are most likely to provide the conditions necessary for peaceful, even fruitful coexistence with others? The first political theory: Cosmopolitanism The word “cosmopolitanism” derives from the Greek word kosmopolites (citizen of the world). The conceptual core shared by all cosmopolitan views is the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, are (or can and should be) citizens in a single community. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) We can say that for a cosmopolitan thinker what matters is sharing global obligations. There are three salient features that seem especially worth pointing out: Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  Individuality: for a cosmopolitan thinker, it is the individual that has moral worth. This is ultimate unit of concern. Universality: every living human should be treated equally, think for instance to Art6 of the Universal Declaration of HRs “everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”. Impartiality: persons are ultimate units of concern for everyone not only for their fellow religionists, compatriots or such like. Taxonomy of Contemporary Cosmopolitanisms A brief glans reveals a wide variety of views that can be called cosmopolitan. Every cosmopolitan thinker argues for sunk community among human beings regardless of social and political affiliation but there are differences. The most common cosmopolitanism is the co-called Moral Cosmopolitanism, whose idea is that we have a moral commitment in helping human beings as such and this commitment involved a duty to aid foreigners that are starving otherwise suffering for instance, or at least the duty to respect all human rights and justice everywhere. So, the focus of this first type is directly on individuals and the claim is that individuals have equal moral status or dignity. Consider also that Moral Cosmopolitanism can be strong or weak: the strong one argues that we have a duty to aid humans in need and that duty is not blocked merely by distance, there are no moral differences between what we owe our fortunate national fellows and what we owe to the distant poor. The moderate or weak one acknowledges the cosmopolitan duty of providing aid but insists that we have special duties to compatriots. Institutional Cosmopolitanism: the core concept is that taking the cosmopolitan idea seriously would require a sort of global political association, an appropriate one. The focus is not on well-being of persons individually but more on achieving a world of decent and peaceful societies. The claim here is then not clearly a moral one but about justice. More precisely we can say that it advocates a global vision of distributive justice and that is why at the level of action, responsibility for others is indirect, responsibility for an institutional cosmopolitanism is realized through the justice of institutions once supports and participates. Institutional cosmopolitanism can be based on two different approaches that correspond to two subtypes: The Society-of-States approach and the World-State approach. The first is clearly state centered and based in international law while the second is more radical because is based on what can be labeled as Cosmopolitan law. What is the difference among Cosmopolitan Law and International Law? Society of states approach argues that a just global order is one in which a system of states that accept they are subjected to duties to other states, supporters of this approach are committed to an idea of equal sovereign state each of which is committed to non-intervention. More and more theorists (cosmopolitan institutional thinkers) think in a different and somehow utopian way (because a world state does not exist) there is the need to create such supranational government. Here, the law between states should become a law for states, this is exactly a cosmopolitan law, whose idea is that law above states should provide basic standards which non-states should be in principle be able to ignore. A clear example of this cosmopolitan law above states is human rights law. Consider that states centered international law has not disappeared however HR law calls this view into question: the development Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) of global human rights regime in fact involves a limitation of states sovereignty. So, sovereignty has value only insofar as the sovereign states protect the freedom and well-being of its citizen and is part of an international legal system that promotes these values globally. There is one measure ethical objection to this view: such a government would entail an extreme concentration of power and consequent danger of tyranny thereby putting in jeopardy the very rights that governments exist to protect. That is why for example it is argued that the development of the UN towards a world state is neither feasible nor desirable. Are we sure then we need a world state to secure global justice in HRs? Very hard to answer but maybe a world federation would be better than a world state, but the debate is open. Excellent example of Cosmopolitan Law: Cosmopolitanism and FGM Let us consider an institutional cosmopolitanism would deal with FGM. Remember what we have seen: institutional cosmopolitanism involves the transformation of institutions, governments, law and decision-making. Such a project requires formal institutional intervention which in ends structures of global governance and challenge classical ideas of state sovereignty. First of all, note that “deliberate bodily and mental harm” that governments do to their own citizens had produced various cosmopolitan moral and political responses and the development of HRs system is based on the idea that the entire global community is responsible for the rights of every individual. With regard to our case study, FGM, the interest in cosmopolitanism is reflected in attempt to realize the transnational advocacy especially in relation to women rights as HRs. So, cosmopolitanism, especially institutional, is not only a thin humanitarian concern for others, it is a political project, primarily concerned in how democratize the global arena. Think about the historic UN General Assembly’s Resolution on FGM in 2012 calling for a global ban on FGM: we can think of this law as a cosmopolitan law. But how did it come to this? It is a typical case of raising awareness. Consider that increasing global interconnectedness has led particular structures in different societies to support global conventions that affirm each women’s rights to live in freedom from such crimes against the person. Besides, remember that the core of cosmopolitan argument is its claim to universalism. A global ban alone is not alone unfortunately, few African countries have officially condemned FGM and still fewer countries have enacted legislations against the practice. There is much to be done but the very fact there is a global condemnation above the states I starting to make a difference. Nationalism In the context of our course, nationalism is not to be considered as an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries. It could be but not necessarily. The term “Nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. According to the definition, nationalism is based on the idea that nations are morally and politically relevant. This means that consequently, if we are nationalists, we are required by justice to give priority to the needs and interests of our fellow nationals over the interests of outsiders and foreigners. From this point of view, nationalism is the direct opposite of cosmopolitan universalism. But be careful because nationalist claim does not plead for a sort of national egoism and insensitivity to the most basic needs of non-nationals. There are also obligations towards non-nationals but generally, for a nationalist these are less strong than those towards fellow nationals. How can we justify this difference? Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) The core argument is the right to self-determination. Self-determination indeed is the essence of nationalism: a nationalist believes a people, or a nation can have an autonomous and authentic resistance according to their own traditions, values and norms in a state of their own. Also, the right of people to self d is a cardinal principle in modern international law. UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (14 December 1960) is a landmark document with regard to this fundamental right (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples)à “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their economic, social and cultural development”. According to this document, all people based on respect for the principle of equal right and fair equality of opportunity have the right to self-determination. Self-determination is defined as an inherent right belonging to every people to decide their political faith. This principle is potentially dangerous: the problem is that it is prone to abuse especially when it counteracts the basic principles of human dignity and human rights. To what extent then should national interests be pursued (in the name of the right to self- determination)? This is the ethical and political dilemma of nationalism. Consider this analogy: according to common sense, moral thinking one not only may but should care about one’s family members than about strangers (wide acceptable partiality), this is a form of ethical partiality in the case of virtue ethics but other instances of partiality most notably rational partiality are basically unacceptable and widely condemned. So, the question becomes: Is national partiality more like “familial” partiality or more like racial partiality? To answer this question, let’s consider the question of multicultural society which can be of help. Consider that nationalism and multiculturalism are not direct enemies and nationalism does not necessarily presuppose monoculturalism. When nationalist aspirations are not combined with negative stereotypes of the other and do not utilize violent means to achieve goals, they can be manageable force in society. On the contrary, when nationalist self-identification is combined with an idea of ethnic (?) purity, it provides the breeding ground for racist attitude. (So, if there is a non- violent way to advance the cause of self-determination, then there are no problems. On the contrary, if the political and social costs of it is violence and ethics cleansing, I cannot say anymore the difference between nationalism and racism). Global ethics as a special concern for vulnerable people and Global justice trumps self-determination, the right not to be treated cruelty is fundamental). Nationalism and FGM Example of clash between the right to self-determination and HRs: Nationalism argument in favor of FGM referring to the Case of Kenya. Kenyan First President defended the practice of FGM in his 1938 book: he described FGM as a custom that helped maintain Kikuyu (small ethnic group in Central Kenya) identity. “The real argument ties not in the defense of the general surgical operation or its details, but the understanding of a very important fact in the tribal psychology of the Kikuyu – namely, that this operation is still regarded as the essence of an institution which has enormous educational, social, moral and religious implications, quite apart from the operation itself)”. (Jomo Kenyatta, 1938) Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Here, the cost of self-determination and the preservation of cultural tradition is clearly gender violence either say we can consider here FGM as a form of ethnic cleansing derived from such an obsessive nationalism. Popular terms for mutilation include cleansing, purification and amutilated women are regarded as disloyal to their culture, unmarriageable and unclean. This is really dangerous for nationalist identity preservation. Political Realism This is a very anti-cosmopolitan stance and could be regarded as the arch enemy of global ethics. When we speak about political realism, we have to point out that realism is definitely incompatible with GE because realists simply deny any conception of a global moral community and any global duties of justice. Realism is simply a view of international politics that stresses its conflictual and competitive side. The principle actors in the international arena according to realists are states concerned with their own security and which act in the pursuit of national interests and struggle for power. A realist ends to be completely skeptical regarding the relevance of ethical norms and human rights to relations among states. The “Melian Dialogue” case The routes of realism can be traced back to such immortal scholars as Hobbes, Machiavelli and Thucydides. A clear case of the rejection of ethical norms in relations among states can be found in the famous Melian Dialogue which relates to the events of 416 when Athens invaded the island of Nalos. The Athenian invoice presented the Melians with a choice: destruction or surrender and asked them to obey justice but to think only about their survival. Athenians: “We both know that the decisions about justice are made in human discussions only when both sides are under equal compulsion, but when one side is stronger, it gets as much as it can, and the weak must accept that”. (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War) Consider that the expression “to be under equal compulsion” means to be under the force of law and has to be subjected to a common law giving authority. Since such an authority above states does not exist, the Athenians argue that in this lawless condition of international anarchy, the only right is the one of the stronger to dominate the weaker. So, they explicitly equate a right with might and exclude as a consequence, considerations of justice from foreign affairs. After ending the dialogue, the Athenian invoice returned to the army and commends hostilities and in the end, the Melians were compelled to surrender. Athenians then killed all military Melians and made slaves all women and children, they colonized the island and sent 500 of them to settle there. The war of all against all War would seem to be an avoidable state. Realists see nations as Hobbes so individuals in his pre- societal state of nature where a man is a wolf to another man. Hobbes and for the realists, everyone is therefore the competitor of everyone else. This is the well-known war of all against all. Here we are at the antipodes of democracy. Lecture recap Cosmopolitanism and the commitment to helping human beings as such that is the core principle. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  Nationalism and the overriding concern for fellow-citizens and the risks connected to the principle of sovereignty and the right to self-determination. Political Realism or the arch enemy of global ethics because it denies any ethical commitment or principle above states. Lecture 7 This lecture will be entirely devoted to HRs. We talked about key political theories of GE. Today let’s move on Rights-based theories, our last tool of the Toolbox. Third Tool: Rights-based theories 1. Global Human Rights 2. Critiques of the Rights As a matter of fact, it is not easy to talk about HRs, it is true that the rhetoric of HRs is all around us nevertheless, every day brings further evidence of the unacceptable divide in our world and the harsh statistics of millions living in poverty and in conflict are truly upsetting. In order to explore the nature of HRs and how they function in GE theories and in practical task to build a more just world, we’ll consider 6 main topics: Definition of HRs: the question is what is the nature of them? Establishment of HRs: the question of implementation of them Development of HRs: the ongoing advancement of HRs thinking History of HRs: what are the origins of the idea that underpins HRs Types of HRs: logical structure HRs and FGM: as usual, the key study of FGM will be used to clarify the arguments discussed in this lecture. Definition At this level the goal is to understand what HRs are with a general description of the concept rather than a list of specific rights. We can start by defining them as follows: HRs are norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal and social abuses. Let’s get through it step by step, how can we do it? It is a very simple method. We begin with a four part explanation of a right: a) HRs are rightsà Rights held by individuals simply because they are part of the human species or the human family. They are shared equally by everyone regardless of sex, race, nationality or economic background. b) HRs are pluralà they address a variety of specific problems such as guaranteeing fair trials, ending slavery, ensuring the availability of education, preventing genocide and so on (very different areas of application indeed). Some philosophers advocate list of HRs but nevertheless accept plurality. c) HRs are universalà At stake here is the idea that all living humans have HRs, one does not to have a particular kind of person or belonging to a specific nationality or religion to have them. From this point of view, race laws are the exact opposite. Included in the idea of universality is some conception of independent existent, this is a very important feature: people have HRs independently of acceptance or enactment as law, the approach is that it permits critics of repressive regimes for instance to appeal to HRs whether are not those regimes accept these rights or recognize them in their legal systems. d) HRs have high priorityà HRs are matters of “paramount importance” and their violation is a great affront to justice. So, if HRs did not have high priority, they would not have the ability to Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) compete with other powerful considerations such as national stability and security, individual self- determination and national and global prosperity. Consider that high priority does not mean that HRs are absolute, they should be understood as resistant to tradeoffs but not to resistance. What does it mean? Consider this example: when the right to life conflicts with the right to privacy, the latter will generally outweigh. So, there seems to be priority variation with HRs. To this, we can add four defining features: e) HRs are inalienable entitlementsà they cannot be taken or given away. This means you cannot lose these rights anymore you cannot cease being a human being. In particular circumstances obviously some through not all may be sustained or restricted for instance one who endorses both HRs and imprisonment as punishment for serious crimes must hold that peoples’ rights to freedom of movement can be forfeited temporarily or permanently by just convictions of serious crimes but punishment that all prisoners’ rights are taken away. f) HRs are interrelatedà in the sense they are all connected to one another. Universal Declaration of HR recognizes the interrelatedness of different HRs for example the right to works art 23 and the right to rest and leisure art 24 are related to the right of standard of living and to the right of security in the event of unemployment, sickness art 25. g) HRs are interdependentà it means that the level of enjoyment of one right is dependent on the realization of other rights. For instance, the right to vote and participate in public affairs may be of little importance to someone who has nothing to eat. Furthermore, the meaningful enjoyment is dependent for instance on the realization to the right of education. h) HRs are indivisibleà all civil, cultural, economic and social rights are equally important. They are inherent into the dignity of every human person and consequently all HRs have equal status and cannot be positioned in hierarchical order. That makes 8 features in total. Establishment of HRs We are now dealing with issues related to the problem of implementation. Consider one extremely important point: the Universal Declaration of HRs has been proclaimed as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations that means that HRs set standard that governments should try to attain nevertheless consider that HRs are not legally binding in the way domestic laws are unless national implementing legislation is passed that is why in invoking HRs it is important not only to identify the elements considered to be entitlements but also to specify the agents that have the duty to bring about the enjoyment of those entitlements. Said that, we can sketch out the problem of implementation as follows: what is at stake here is the identification of rights holders who by virtue of being human have a claim to certain entitlements and be duty bearers, who are supposed to act in such a way to realize the entitlement associated with those claims. Now then who are the primary duty bearers? First of all, States not just them, all of us but by ratifying the different UN HRs treaties, states automatically assume the principle rule of guaranteeing these rights. Looking at the scheme, we can see that the scope of the state is threefold: respect, protect and fulfil. Obviously, there are problems with implementation that as we can imagine is still some way off, sometimes states act to promote HRs only when it is in their best interest. Consider also this side of the problem: the incorporation of HRs norms in constitutions and the reforms of domestic law are not entirely sufficient in implementing them into domestic practice. But it is worth remembering there are also international mechanisms authorized to enforce some respect for Hrs. Think for instance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal which has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Historically, the ICC began functioning on 1 July 2002, the date that the Rome Statute entered into force. Rome Statute is a multilateral treaty which serves as Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) the ICC foundation and governing document. Consider also the ICC only has jurisdiction to investigate crimes which have taken place into nations or states that are party to the Rome Statute or have accepted the court jurisdiction and this is a problem. Development of HRs UDHRs is the must universal HRs document in existence delineating the thirty fundamental rights that constitute the basis for a democratic society but the enumeration for HRs was not simply frozen by the declaration in 1948 by the UUN General Assembly in Paris on 10th December 1948 and drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world. Since those times, dozens of treaties and agreements that create binding legal obligations for states and intergovernmental declarations have supplemented these proclamations of rights. The development of international HRs depends on how many states ratify it - meaning make a legal binding commitment to the various treaties – consider signature of treaty usually notifies agreement to the content of treaty whereas ratification indicates a country’s consent to be bound by the treaty. History of HRs Very short conceptual history. The doctrine of HRs rests upon the particular fundamental philosophical claim, the existence of a truly universal moral community comprising all human beings everywhere and at all times. This kind of moral universalism posits the existence of rationally identifiable transcultural and transhistorical moral truth. The origins of moral universalism also known as “Natural Law” within Europe are typically associated with writings Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Grotius and Locke. We will focus our attention especially on John Locke. John Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense they are born with certain invaluable natural rights among these fundamental rights Locke said are life, liberty and property. For Locke, the protection and promotion of individuals natural rights was the sole justification for the creation of governments, and he went so far as to say that individuals are morally justified in taking up arms against their government in case it systematically and liberately fails in its duty to secure individuals possessions of natural rights. We may notice the resemblance with US Declaration of Independence adopted by the Congress in July 4th, 1776. Someone even says that John Locke inspired Thomas Jefferson and James Madison when wrote the declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Likewise, very similar ideas were found in the French revolution and in the founding document of the republic, the Declaration of Rights of men and the citizens. Part II Types of Rights: the Hohfeldian framework of analysis The history of rights shows there are different kinds of rights and analysis reveals that most familiar rights such as of free expression or private property have a complex internal structure. The four basic components of rights are known are the Hohfeldian elements after the American legal theorist who discovered them. These are liberty (or privilege), claim (negative/ positive), power and immunity. Consider that liberty and claims define the so-called “primary rules”, i.e. requiring people perform or refrain from performing particular actions. Power and immunity are the “secondary rules”, i.e. specify how agents can introduce and change primary rules. Privilege (or Liberty)à A has the privilege to do X if and only if A has no duty not to do X. Ex: you have a liberty to pick up a shell that you find on the beach, this liberty is clearly a privilege but why? This is to say you have no duty not to pick it up. Similarly, you are free to sit up in a free seat in the cinema or to paint your bedroom red, these are also privileges. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Claimà A has a claim that B do X if and only if B has a duty to A to do X. Consider here that every claim right correlates to a duty in at least one duty bearer, this is logical, what is distinctive of claim right is that a duty bearer duty is directed at the right holder. Ex: the child’s claim-right against abuse correlates to a duty in every other person not to abuse him. This also illustrates how a claim rights can require duty bearers to refrain from performing some actions, they have duty of noninterference. Bodily and property rights are paradigmatic rights with claim rights at their core. Powerà A has a power if and only if A has the ability to alter her own or another’s Hohfeldian elements. Thus, endowing you with a corresponding privilege. Consider for instance a neighbor waves his claim that you do not enter his property by inviting you into his home or the state has a general power to impose taxes via legislation and the citizen (or another legal person) is liable to be subject. Liability means subjection or responsibility. Consider also that once a taxation scheme is specified through legislation the power liability relation produces a concrete right duty relation. In other words, the state has a legal right to collect the amount due and the citizens has the duty to pay. Immunityà B has an immunity if and only if A lacks the ability to alter B’s Hohfeldian elements. Ex: the US Constitution’s First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Consider US Congress lacks the ability within the constitution to impose upon American citizens a duty to neal daily before a cross. Since the congress lacks the power, citizens have an immunity which is a core element of an American’s citizen right to just freedom. Further point especially relevant: there is a traditional distinction between two types of human rights: negativethat are respected by non-intervention (it means that a negative right requires only that other people do nothing to violate a right for instance claim rights against abuse, self- determination or freedom of thought and speech) and positive that require resources for its realization and they may include civil and political rights such as protection of persons which requires someone else such as the police force provides adequate protection as well as economic and social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, healthcare and a minimum standard of living (as they are enlisted in Art 25). Some other framework of analysis: Henri Shue – Basic Rights Now the question is, how should rights be given priority? Henri Sue professor of political and IR at Oxford University is convinced that the answer is to divide basic rights from other rights. So, Henri’s approach presents an extremely power and influential argument for the claim that liberty alone is not ultimately sufficient for granting all HRs. To put in another words, he argues that many of rights imply more than mere individual liberty and extend to include the security from violence and the necessary material conditions for personal survival. Basic rights provide according to him, a minimum standard no one should be permitted to fall below, and these rights are prerequisite for exercising all other rights and these basic rights fit particularly well into discourse about what should be provided in emergency situations and to those living in poor countries. A life that does not have these rights is unacceptable for sure. Think for instance to the right to adequate food, this right is recognized in the 1948 Declaration of HRs as part pf the rights to an adequate standard of living and is enshrined into the 1966 international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. This right is minimum but in fact is very demanding, the right to adequate food involves the right to safe food for instance and this implies a state obligation to adopt legislation imposing duties on private food producers to ensure that only safe food is marketed. Another framework of analysis: Ronald Dworkin – Rights as “trumps” Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Dworkin was professor of law and philosophy at NY University and University College London. He agreed that rights have special normative force and the reason that rights provide are for him particularly powerful or weighted reasons which override reasons of other sources. Dworkin’s metaphor is rights as “trumps”. This metaphor suggests rights trump non-right objectives such as increase in national wealth or a minority possession of rights against discriminatory treatment should trump any and all considerations of all possible benefits that the majority would derive from discriminating against the minority group. HRs and FGM HRs approach provides a normative argument for saying that the procedure is wrong and more solid framework for campaigning against the practice of FGM that may violate a wide range of HRs enumerated in the Children’s convention. For our purpose, we can understand FGM as a subset of all physical integrity right violation. Drawing on Hohfeldian scheme, let’s start with primary rules (liberty and claim). Under liberty perspective the right to bodily integrity means you are free you have privilege to control your body and this means you are the master of it. It means that to other people are not saying in the use in your body and they should not use, hurt it or force you to use it in a certain way. Under a claim perspective, this is you claim against bodily intrusion against non- consensual assault or invasion and the right is held against all other persons and the state all of which have the duty not to invade my body. It is a claim to bodily authority, self-determination against interference. Now the secondary rules (power and immunity). Immunity is a protection against others altering your claim, but you have also the power to renounce or transfer your claim, this power is very important. Consider this example: if one could not wave one’s property claims, one could lend our land, sell or give one’s property away. Similarly, if one could never wave one’s right to bodily integrity one could never grant a surgical permission to operate, in the case of FGM there is a debate. Governments may wish to recognize as exception to a prohibition to FGM when an adult undergoes the procedures has given her inform consent. Consider the Cairo declaration for the elimination of FGM (2003) took the position that all performance of FGM should be illegal and that consent is irrelevant, especially according to article 13 “the age of a girl or woman or her consent to undergoing FGM should not, under any conditions, affect the criminality of the act”. Lecture 8 Today’s topics are devoted to analyzing the critic of values underpinning HRs. Today we will conclude the analysis of our ethical toolbox and its components. Overview First of all, we will analyze the critics of the rights framework and secondly, we will try to reject FGM considered a practice that infringes HRs in particular the interesting case of Tanzania. As we have learned from last lecture, HRs discourse is extremely powerful and appealing. It is true that HRs issues have gained global recognition in contemporary world even though the form they assume in different societies varies. Furthermore, consider also that the establishment of numerous HRs monitoring mechanism at international and regional level points towards a worldwide acceptance by states of HRs obligations and responsibilities vis a vis individual. However, in the last lecture we have seen there are many problems in establishing and implementing HRs. Some of these difficulties are theoretical. What should count as human right? What should be prioritized? But note also that other difficulties are practical: if a human right is established then how is responsible for meeting that right? All these problems suggest a more prudent approach. We have to avoid transforming HRs in a sort of worship, they are misunderstood if seen as a secular religion, it is not a creed, it is not metaphysics. We need to sto thinking of HRs as specie of idolatries and being of Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) thinking of them as sort of common language that create the basis for collective deliberation. In this dialogical process, HRs are open to a variety of interpretation, discussions and criticism. Today we shall evaluate some basic criticism of rights framework as a whole beginning with an objection from classical utilitarianism. Critiques of the rights framework: Bentham It is generally accepted that Bentham’s critique of the French D of the rights of men and citizen 1789 constitutes one of the most influential attacks on the concept of rights ever written. Although he was originally a supporter of the French revolution, he soon became horrified at its excesses. So, Bentham dismissed the idea of HRs as “non-sense upon stilts”. Let us consider first the philosophical side of this criticism. Bentham’s most categorical and damning criticism of natural rights is the claim that they simply do not exist, he proceeds to destroy all potential ground for such proof for existence of natural rights or human rights. First of all, statement provided by Bentham is that “society can provide no evidence of these fallacious rights”. When the French declaration states that all men are born free, Bentham responds with a mused contempt: “it is clear that men are born into subjection bound to their families, their social position or even in the actual bond of slavery”. The second possible ground for natural rights analyzed by Bentham is the argument that humanity in a state of nature possesses rights that are lost or corrupted in society, but he is equally derisive about this suggestion. It is impossible, he argues, to have rights without a government or without positive law. The final possible foundation of natural rights was the idea of a social contract and he again destroys this possibility arguing that the origination of governments from contract is a pure fiction or false quote, there is no evidence for him of any society created in this way. On the contrary, “we know very well that all societies are formed by force and established by habit”. The other trend of Bentham attack is based on his political detestation of these rights (political criticism). He repeatedly asserts that natural rights are tool of anarchists and their road to revolution. Here is his argument: consider that the belief in natural rights gives rise to expectations that no government could fulfil, every government will fall short and when it does so is subject puzzled by the deceptive language of rights and motivated by their absolute romantic promise will be inspired to revolt rather than to engage in careful debate and reform. We should not be surprised of this attack to human rights, as already in lecture 4, Bentham and his utilitarian philosophy treats people as means to social end rather than as Kantian and that is why utilitarian cannot understand that doing certain things to people such as torture or killing or imprisonment on false pretext is just wrong, irrespective of the suffering it may cause. That is why for Bentham the tacit message of Declaration is this “People behold your rights! If a single article of them be violated, insurrection is not your right only, but the most sacred of your duties”. Bentham is horrified by this kind of anarchical drive. In this statement however, his target was not the Kantian claim that people are endowed with dignity and rationality and his enemy was not just the idea of right, his problem was that considering natural rights were commonly associated with French Jacobins (Robespierre and others) who had instigated the reign of terror and so a defender of natural rights run the risk of being condemned as a French sympathizer or a Jacobine or at least for him as an anarchist. Critique of the rights framework: Marx Marx opinion is in his famous book The Jewish Question, 1844: “We note the fact that the seo-called rights of man, the droits de l’homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society, i.e. the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community”. So, the alleged universal right of the abstract individual – Marx claims - in Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) reality would promote the interests of one particular social type, the possessive individual of capitalism. So, HRs would be linked to bourgeois ideology and this is particularly evident with the right of private property. Marx’s critique of the right to private property is this: “The right of man to property is the right to enjoy his possessions and dispose of the same arbitrarily without regard for other men, independent of society, the right of selfishness”. Marx understands the rights of men as both canonizing individualism and defining the capitalists and egoistic mode of production. Can a Marxist support HRs? I believe within the broad Marxist tradition, there is scope to defend and mobilize the language of HRs. Consider for instance this point: in many ways the system of capitalism underlines the entire corpus of HRs, so for a Marxist it is possible to combine campaign and struggles around specific rights issues – think for instance