Global Ethics

Different forms of universalism

● Monological: it is a sort of imperialist way of thinking which is incompatible with global ethics

● Dialogical:

1. Normative commitment: out of the comfort-zone
2. Interpretative perspective taking: empathy
3. Social self-reflexivity: distant from cultural assumptions

Ethnocentrism is the core element of universalism. However, it is criticized to be a means of violence and oppression; hence, it is often questioned whether there is an alternative way of interpretation?

The cultural critique of universalism by relativists is based on the objection that if there is really a potential universal understanding, then there should not be conflict. On the other hand, relativism appeared to be highly tolerant: on a theoretical basis yes, however in practice in this way morality is useless, because all actions can be justified. This attitude brings to an anarchic individualist society. Hence, the relativist premises may be good, but the conclusions rarely ended up to be.

so.Applying relativism to FGM, the main argument would be "who are we to judge?"
Thursday 23rd March
Why do we need ethical tools? We need them to justify our theory in a dialogical process with a counterpart, opposite to us.
Aristotle claimed that the perfect mix for an ideal dialogue is flexibility + creativity + precise reasoning for our ideas.
Ethics is about taking the right thing decision in each situation. The answer is normative ethics, which always take into account an agent, an action and an outcome.
The most important subcategory of normative ethics is consequentialism, which clearly focuses on the outcome of each action, engaging in a deep cost-benefits approach.
There are 3 types of consequentialism:
1. Ethical egoism
2. Group consequentialism
3. Utilitarianism
The main element of the utility approach: making as many people as possible, as happy as possible. An important thing to take into account is imperialism: everyone's happiness counts equally.
At this point in theOn the base of such pyramid there could be noticed basic human beings, such as anger, sex or shelter. The more we go up the pyramid, the desires become more spiritual and intellectual; it seems that the more a society is progresses, the more the pyramid become higher and hence happiness is more difficult to achieve. The advantages of utilitarianism are impartiality and happiness maximisation. The disadvantages is the idea that every outcome justifies the means, resulting in the transplanet idea that there is no such important thing that is worth of protection. FGM case For an utilitarian there is no action which is intrensically good or wrong, it all depends on the consequences. A relevant concept is the one that "everybody counts to one, nobody counts to more than one". Let's use an hedonic/utility calculus, which defines 7 categories helping us to decide whether an ction is right or wrong. 1. intensity 2. duration 3. certainty 4. remoteress 5. fecundity 6. punity: how much is the

Action free from the opposite feeling? (pain/pleasure) Concluding, for an utilitarian, FGM can be considered as a good action if the people benefitting from it are more than the victims.

Thursday 30th March

Since ethics is mostly about the analysis of actions, we can use different tools to achieve our aim. One of them is deontology, which bases its understanding of actions on whether or not an action conforms to a certain morality. Different from the previous approach, consequentialism, for a deontologist there is always a right and a wrong thing irrespective of the consequences of such action.

We have 3 sub-theories which belong to this way of thinking:

1. Defined command theory: morality comes from the idea of obedience to God
2. Intuitionistic theory: this is a fallible model, since it is based on an immediate understanding of the nature of an action, without reasoning
3. Kantian approach: every human being acts rationally when he follows moral laws. It is a universal model, in the sense that it

can be applied to every situation. For him, any desirable end can justify bad means. A motto that can summarize his thought is "duty for duty's sake": an action must not be based on our feelings, instead on what it is right to do in each situation.

He developed the idea of "categorical imperative", different from the hypothetical one because in this case there is an unconditional sense of good in a potential action.

Another relevant element is the idea of "maxism", which he defines as the system of principles on which we decide to behave. It is an understanding test: could this maxism be desirable for all rational agents?

To understand the philosophy of Kant it is important to understand what he means with the quote "the ends do not only mean criteria": there are only some exceptions to the idea that people cannot be treated only as means to achieve our accomplishment, which is the idea of "commodification".

The model of Kant is

Considered to be utopic because it is too strict to be applied in real life. To support this idea we can use the case study of FGM: women are treated as means for men pleasure, since they remain under their control, without being seen as people.

Virtue theory

According to Aristotle, morality is based on what kind of people we are, not on our actions.

Pro-social actions are motivated by altruism, which is deeply in contrast to what is the basic idea of the "hegelian consequentialism", according to which we engage in helping someone, only if doing so we gain any kind of benefit.

For Aristotle, to understand whether an action is benevolent, we must answer to 2 questions:

1. In which way a good person would act in that particular case?
2. Which is the highest goal?

Aristotle indicates as the highest potential good happiness. He represents happiness as the capacity to live well with and for others. Hence, happiness is not a state of mind, instead it is an objective element: "well-acting".

also called eudaimonia, is different from "well-being". Achieving full potential is possible only with others, through a virtuous life. Aristotle identifies justice as the most important virtue. Justice is a matter of finding the right aid, the one that is sensitive to the situation and which follows the concept of "appropriate proportionality", hence no relativism nor discrimination (not applicable globally). Applying the notion of virtue to the case of FGM: 1. it is not compatible with women's happiness 2. the idea of care, hence the fact of being ready to fight for women's rights Trolly experiment 1967: Kantian vs Utilitarian Thursday 13th April Political theories are primarily concerned with questions of justice: which claims can a person make directly to other individuals or to the states? They emerged from real life consideration, especially from social interactions. Moral and political theories are not parallel: the first are theories of human conduct, whilethe second focuses on our collective arrangements, how to live together in justice and dignity. - Cosmopolitanism Historically, the first element was seen in the 4th century in ancient Greek. The idea of world citizenship emerged during the golden age of Pericles. The claim of autochthony was allowed only for those born in a specific polis. This gave rise to the concept of "Athenian purity", which can be compared to the more recent event of the Nazi idea of racial superiority. There are 3 main characteristics of cosmopolitanism: 1. Individuality: It is the ultimate unit of concern. 2. Universality: Every human should be treated equally. 3. Generality or impartiality: Considered equal globally, not based on specific features. There are many points in common with Kant. For example, the previous second and third points fit well in the second and third theories. There is a difference between: - Moral: We have a moral commitment to help human beings as such or at least to respect and promote basic human rights. All

individuals have equal moral status.

1. strong approach: there are no limits to such moral duties, for example distance
2. moderate approach: it can be restricted based on a sort of hierarchical priority
   • institutional: to take it seriously we will need a global association. The political claim is in regard to distributive justice.
   1. society of states approach: international law
   2. cosmopolitarian approach: differently from the traditional international westphalian order.

Are states an instrument for the achievement of justice? Many theories provide the idea of supranational laws, such as one for the protection of human rights. A clear example is the law of "responsibility to protect", which is in clear contrast with the principle of "non-interference".

Regarding the case of FGM: in this case institutional cosmopolitarianism is an actual political project. An example was the global ban of 2012 as an example of cosmopolitan law.

There is a definite claim for universalism.

Nationalism

It has not to be considered as an extreme form of patriotism, national egoism nor the rejection of basic needs for non-nationals. This depends on the modern concept of rights, thanks to the resolution n.1514: all people have the right for self-determination.

- Case of FGM in Kenya: western impositions were seen as cultural colonization. This brought to the establishment of the idea that FGM was a nationalist event i.e a symbol of national identity.

Political realism

It is an actual enemy for global ethics. Realism denies any conception of global duties and global moral community. It reduces the global arena only to a fighting field for power. This idea can be traced back to Trucydelles, Hobbes