PHIL 104 (STOLZE) Notes on Heather Widdows, Global Ethics: An Introduction, chapter 4

Political Theory for Global Ethics Political Realism Nationalism The Society-of-States Approach Cosmopolitanism John Rawls’ Theory of Justice as Fairness

“We Take Care of Our Own” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEU3JjNARs

Political Realism Morality is a set of rules that rational people agree to for their mutual benefit. Others must also comply for it to be in an individual’s self-interest to comply. Some authority or government is necessary to ensure compliance. In the international arena there is no such authority. Therefore, it is not rational for states to comply with moral rules because they have no guarantee that others do. Therefore, there is no morality (moral rules) in the international arena.

Nationalism There are certain special obligations to compatriots/co-nationals that do not necessarily extend to non-compatriots. These special obligations do not preclude there also being some global obligations. These special obligations, like other special obligations, are not strange but are morally justified.

The Society-of-States Approach “The society-of-states approach argues that the international order is one made up of states and that states are the units of ethical consideration. Accordingly, states have moral duties to other states, not to individuals within those states. Moral duties that states are required to respect are those of non-interference, sovereignty and independence. Thus the society-of-states approach regards the international sphere as a moral sphere with its own rules of good conduct. What counts as morally good or right in the international sphere is different from what is good or right in the domestic sphere. Therefore, although both the international and the domestic realm are governed by moral rules, they are governed by different moral rules. In the domestic realm the unit of concern is the individual, and moral issues concern what is right or wrong for individuals; in the global realm the unit of concern is the state and what is right or wrong for states, these are completely separate moral realms that respect quite different moral values” (p. 89). Objection: Individuals already travel between states, “take stands” as consumers or workers across borders, and many existing communities (business, academic, scientific, religious, cultural) are transnational.

Cosmopolitanism For a view to be cosmopolitan: the individual must be the key unit of ethical concern; all individuals/every individual must be equivalent units of ethical concern; it must apply globally; the primary focus is the political.

Versions of Cosmopolitanism Weak: Some moral obligations go beyond borders and apply to all persons. Strong: All moral obligations go beyond borders and apply to all persons. Moral: All individuals have equal moral status. Institutional: Global institutions, structures, and associations (not just individuals) are required to fulfill the obligations of global justice.

Rawls on the “Original Position” Not an actual historical state of affairs but a thought experiment. Participants are equal and make decisions about principles of justice behind a “veil of ignorance.” Such decisions are binding on all participants.

Rawls’s Two Principles of Justice The first principle of justice “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.” The second principle of justice “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle) and b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”

Features of Rawls’s Principles of Justice The first principle: Equality of “basic liberties of citizens” Political liberty (the right to vote and be eligible for public office) Freedom of speech and assembly. Liberty of conscience and freedom of thought. Freedom of the person and the right to hold property. Freedom from arbitrary arrest. The second principle: Fair distribution Fair distribution of income and wealth Fair organization of authority, responsibility, and chains of command and distribution of positions therein.

Rawls’s Principles of International Morality Peoples are free and independent, and their freedom and independence are to be respected by other peoples. Peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings. Peoples are equal and are parties to the agreements that bind them. Peoples are to observe the duty of non-intervention (except to address grave violations of human rights). Peoples have a right of self-defense, but no right to instigate war for reasons other than self-defense. Peoples are to honor human rights. Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions in the conduct of war. Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavourable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent political and social regime.

Moellendorf’s Claims About justice: Duties of justice are different from general moral duties. Duties of justice are primarily institutional rather than between individuals. Because duties of justice are institutional, they are often fulfilled indirectly. Duties of justice occur within associations. About global justice: For there to be global duties of justice, there must be an appropriate global association. The global economic order is such an association. Accordingly, there are global duties of justice.