Different Schools of Philosophy for International Ethics
[Relevant for Public Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude]
Different Schools of Philosophy for International Ethics
At various times, the world attention gets itself focused on the most powerful nation both domestically and internationally. Many wars and conflicts are indeed triggered by the unilateral moves of dominant nations against other nations that threaten its global interest. What powerful nations have done to other nations cannot be forgotten and how this power is played out. There are beliefs in some quarters that power does not follow any rules and this reasoning i.e. thought faulty is extended to apply to international spaces and relations in its so-called anarchy nature. Under such assumptions, naturally, justice follows national boundaries without any space of international or global justice.
Hugo Grotius
|
In contrast to anarchy, nature of power i.e. power which does not follow any rules, we can have alternative belief that yes there is an international power but that power follows certain rules. Some philosophical questions may still be raised. Why power and why follow rules if one has power? International humility and patience are indeed rare, true, but the question can still be asked regarding the dynamism of dominant state power.
Philosophy of International Ethics
1. Realism & International Ethics
|
What is Realism? Realism is considered the most dominant school of thought in international relations. It is the exercise of power by states towards each and is also known as “power politics” or “real politik”. All Realists share a belief that states are unitary rational actors that are motivated by the desire for military power and security rather than ideals or ethics. Realists view human nature as selfish, conflictual and competitive and believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and obsessed with security (defensive realism) Realism values order and does not welcome change (it is status quo oriented) |
Realism focuses on single reality, international power. It is the power that one nation has to influence another nation directing and shaping its destiny in the direction it desires, namely into a kind of tacit servitude of serving and protecting its interests at the cost of the other.
In the international realm, realism holds that the only thing that really matters is power, what power a country has. Nothing else matters. Morality, ethics, laws and political systems, legal systems, cultural systems are all irrelevant. The argument appears to be that in the international sphere, human value is such that no one can be trusted each other to dominate the other. Either one country will dominate the other or the other will try to dominate the first, so it is better to be the dominating or dominant country. The realist approach to the international sphere or international relations is simply to deny any form of common or shared ethics and create an ethically neutral zone or an ethics-free zone which can be filled by the power of one who is dominant.
Obviously, others will perceive realist conception of international space, international relations based solely on the principle of power as quite unjust. There is nothing in realist conception or in realism that prevents someone from making an ethical assessment of the power motivation and the dominant actions of the dominant country and be able to withstand such pressure and claim it to be unethical or unjust. For many people, the attempt to control other people and direct their destinies in the international sphere is repugnant and more demoralizing. When power is the sole basis of international relations and international actions, assessment will be colored by such perception.
Realism conceives the international sphere as a space where anarchy prevails and there are no rules. Why would anyone follow rules made externally or made by another? What binding power those rules have that are made internally? Is a country free if it follows the rules made by another? So, basically this is fight between sovereignty of the nation versus vis-a-vis internationalism.
What if there are agreements between international parties, would those agreements be binding and if so, would the rules on the basis of which such agreements made appear to hold? As a test case, consider human rights or human dignity. Do these rules hold in the international sphere and in international relations? Who will enforce them if they hold? Who will hold another accountable for their violations? Thus, in realist conceptions, if power is the only thing that works in international relations, then human rights violations or human dignity violations will continue to occur and there will be no one to stop them except a power greater than itself.
Thus, the realist position or realism tends towards a preference for war as the ultimate way to resolve international conflicts.
Realism sentiments within nations may make it rational to pursue power, create power distance and dominance over its neighbors and at the same time seek to balance power by aligning sufficient number of states for a country to counter the power influence of those nations opposed or against it.
In this way, realism in thought, word and deed creates and spawns a world fundamentally divided into two. There will be no unipolar world for sure. The fact that one exists after the collapse of the Soviet Union is only a temporary phase, somewhat illusionary.
The world soon responds by restoring and creating balance of power. What exists through the realist conception is only a multiplicity of different bipolar worlds and their coalitions. Such a world where balancing power exists certainly will not rule out world war or wars in general.
Pursuing realism and realist policies will be detrimental to our common world with its common vision of a humane future for everyone. Realism is incapable of enabling such an achievement. Realism as a field is a necessary ingredient for the creation of a superpower and a relative independence or servitude as the case may be for others in relation to it.
Since currently only one country still remains the status of a superpower and others are expected to follow its lead, the silent dream of many others to be supporters of the 21st century are just fantasy illusions. The power flows have rules. In this one can also consider the reverse proposition where rules basically comes from power. Realism contradicts insofar as it conceives of power in terms of anarchy without any rules. Philosophy hopefully uncovers and lays bare the rules that power follows to exert its control and its directions.
Realism is a theory of balance of power. All we can expect is that the most powerful nation on earth will have no one to challenge its power and so there will be peace. This is just a conventional thinking. Deeper reality shows its power is already being challenged. The name and form of war has changed. Shadows overcast over many nations have not disappeared. They remain. There is no real peace.
Realism does well in terms of trade and trade terms are set by powerful against the weak. But it is hardly a philosophy for what ought to be. It is hardly a philosophy of normative considerations.
There will be some international sphere limited and defined by trade relations and by wars.
International ethics then in so far realism is concerned is just the field of international trade wars and international war and peace and the necessity of having some kind of international justice dictated and dominated by the rule of the powerful, the dominant country in the realm. What one sees in the fight between Israel and Gaza strip controlled by Hamas after the Oct 7th 2023 incidence (which to some was just the consequence of Israel making a whole nation Palestine incarcerated) could be best example of Realism practised by the Jew state.
-
Idealism and International Ethics
| Low Relativism | High Relativism | |
| Low Idealism | Exceptionists Conventionalists who tolerate exceptions to moral standards when benefits offset potential harmful consequences (e.g., rule-utilitarians) |
Subjectivists Realists who do not endorse moral standards that define right and wrong or the avoidance of harmful consequences (e.g., act- utilitarians, amoralists) |
| High Idealism | Absolutists Principled idealists who endorse both reliance on moral standards and striving to minimize harm done to others (e.g., deontologists) |
Situationists Idealistic contextualists who value minimizing harm rather than reliance on moral standards that define right and wrong (e.g., humanitarians) |
It is just the opposite of Realism and rests on the other pole of the spectrum as far as international ethics is concerned. Idealism focuses on common interest, idealist values that are of common interest to nation participating in an international issues and problems. It is a philosophical thought.
Idealism has the potential to create more lasting hopes. Thus, the rise of idealism holds out a promise even though conflicts remain. Idealism points to trade interest between nations as common interest.
Growing interdependence between nations are shown to be aiding and being supported by idealism. Human beings and humanity as a whole is capable of displaying high level of idealism. In idealism thus ethics, morality, laws, legal system, international institutions all have a central place.
International treaties, the United Nations organization and the system have a central role and support idealism and idealist thinking endorses it. These provide international ethical guidance. Idealism may hold out the olive branch, a symbol of covenant between God and man by offering the best humanity has to offer collectively for the world and for the future of the world for its future generation. Idealism is a movement towards peace and peace initiatives and strategies as opposed to outright power play in wars or through wars. International sphere includes more than power and politics. Idealism does not rule out the possibility of war but holds that an olive branch to those who can see, reason and faith.
3. Constructivism and international ethics
| Definition of Constructivism
■ Refers to the claim that ideas, besides material matters, have an impact on politics (it would differ from rational choice in that this impact is not necessarily reducible to calculated strategic action) |
Constructivism focuses on things like foreign policy, diplomatic initiatives etc. to shape international relations and the international sphere where a country has credible influence. In these things the focus is on domestic politics and how it shapes foreign policy. It is more pragmatic with domestic political regimes as seat of international actions and initiators of international actions and its implementation. Every nation and every state create a sense of national identity in various ways and nurture it through historical and cultural celebrations and means. This is also a part of constructivism of the nation state. Thus, national identity is constructed and it in turn is said to influence the way the nation interacts.
Basically, constructivism allows for influence of national identities and its constructions on the international sphere. A flavour or dimension is added through identity politics into international sphere and relations.
International sphere can also be a place where various identities can melt into more humane understanding between people in and through the give and take of identity respect and exchanges.
Constructivism shows that nation resist any threat to their identities, nationalism, national sovereignty that are perceived. They need not be real at all. This works against attempts to make the world a better place or to change world systems or world order. All such attempts by other nations, however rational they may be, will be resisted if national identity is not respected.
All desire to transform the world by any nation are sacrificed at the altar of identity politics and constructivism of other nations. Constructivism gives more power to individual nations.
In the 21st century, there is rise of identity politics and political power. National identities based on religious domains span across countries. Religious fault lines of conflict may open up and trigger problems. It will spread the fire of violence and anger. Identity tensions will be strongly felt and whatever feeds identity tensions and forms them is far from allowing people to be truly free and open in shaping the one world destiny of all humankind. It is like the Huntington prophecy of clash of civilization.
4. Cosmopolitanism and International Ethics
|
Origin of Cosmopolitanism • Cosmopolitanism can be traced back to Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412 В.С.) |
Cosmopolitanism shares something in common with idealism, namely, do the right thing. The right thing is to be done is to behave as you would want others to behave. What is relevant in the global community since we interact with people in other countries? It holds that since we interact with other countries, we have a moral duty to treat people of that country morally as moral people.
Hence the prescription in cosmopolitanism is to do the right thing. Cosmopolitanism thus empowers international ethics and the development of global values and ethics fully.
Cosmopolitanism argues for following morally lawful behavior.
- Where rules and laws do not exist, it would require that we come together and negotiate the rules and laws that are ethical to follow and follow them in our relations with people of other countries and in our interactions with people of other countries.
- It will give importance to people their freedom and rights rather than sovereignty of nation states.
- It is certainly capable of universality in thought.
- Cosmopolitanism focuses on the international community as having an important and, in some cases, decisive role.
Such developments may be resisted by nations who feel that they are at the receiving end of world opinion or world politics and which prefer their national identity and sovereignty sentiments.
Constraint choices in international ethics
International ethics guides our choices in the international sphere, but evidently our choices are constrained rather than free.
- The choices may be constrained by the necessity of pleasing the domestic political support.
- The choices may be constrained by the identity politics.
- The choices may be constrained by power equations and balances.
Some have argued for preferences given for national interest when it is a choice of national interest versus global interest, while accepting in general that a country’s goal must be defended as morally right thing to do, a country goal and interest are several and may be in conflict with themselves Without any clarity and more confusion that the general acceptance that it is moral to defend a country’s goals becomes meaningless. It has no normative force.
It is no doubt that morality implies choice between two or more alternative states of actions. It is sometimes argued that if the practical necessities or constraints are such that they concern the survival or extinction of a state or its identity, any such constraints make morality or ethics or law or political system irrelevant.
Obviously, as in the case of realism, that is the premise of a threat experienced by a power from another stronger or superpower. In the end, ethics and morality considered as constraints or as practical constraints really means that ethics and ethical goals and objectives are not pursued to start with. The objective is something else. In such cases, agreeing to such international ethics is to begin with a failure. Ethics must reflect as a central concern to be pursued as basis for all other international actions.
Equality of Life and International Ethics
Every life may be considered as having equal moral weight. It is the global interests that count as much as domestic interests.
No preferences is given by government or by anybody else to the welfare of citizens of that country. There are no differentiating factors recognized by such government that distinguish between the welfare of its citizens and those belonging to another country. Everyone has equal rights. In such cases and in the context of such belief of equality of life, it becomes meaningful to make sacrifices for others. People rarely sacrifice themselves for their own near and dear ones. But people sacrificing themselves for others in the international space are truly worthy examples of human greatness and the greatness to which human spirit can rise.
Respect for life of the unborn in the international sphere implies that countries do not push their own agenda under the guise of controlling rising populations in their own and other countries. Respect for life should guide international ethics in thought, word and deed. When that day comes when we respect the right to life of the unborn, it will truly be a day of universal peace. If you have to make decision about which world you want to live in without knowing what position you will be in, you would choose a world that protects the weakest of the weak. And this particular proposition comes from John Rawls’ fail-proof theory.
Economics, Social and Environmental Frameworks and International Ethics
Though context may differ, there are a number of frameworks available for making decisions concerning international actions which have economic, social and environmental consequences and impacts over future generations. There is a gap between any system of global and international values and international ethics on the ground because of the widening gap in ground realities between nations and international organizations due to levels of difficult conflict. The frameworks are evolved to provide a way of the conflict and they are useful to deal with a number of conflicting ideas on international ethics. There are several global institutions concerned with the global economic order, others with the global information order, still others with the global environmental regimes or order. Each of them offers a framework.
#EthicsBlogoTerms
Related Blogs …
 |
 |
Follow us :
🔎 https://www.instagram.com/triumphias
🔎 https://www.youtube.com/c/TriumphIAS
🔎 https://t.me/VikashRanjanSociology
Find More Blogs…
| Compare and contrast Karl Marx’s and Max weber’s | Karl Marx- Historical Materialism |
| Position of Women In the Modern Indian Society | Sociology: Social system and pattern variables |
One comment