Comment sheet pick-up

Graded comment sheets will be available for pick-up at Monday, April 28th, @ my office (Watson 024) from 11-12pm. If you can't make it Monday, You'll have another opportunity on Thursday at the same time and place.

additional notes on Narveson / Brunk

The Narveson vs. Brunk debate

The debate overall

1. Narveson’s challenge to pacifism

He singles out a principle of pacifism then criticizes its underlying “moral logic”
If this is what pacifism is, then its underlying moral logic is irrational
Therefore, we should reject the ethic of pacifism

'Devastating philosophical critique' of the philosophy of pacifism

For Narveson, the pacifist ethic is essentially as follows:

A. The use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Insofar as people resort to force (for any reason) they breach their moral duty”
[This includes acts of violence meant to resist, prevent, or punish, previous violence]

B. But, proposition A cannot be a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Violence is wrong, and yet it is wrong to resist it”
If violence is evil, the non-pacifist should be permitted to use whatever means available in reacting against or preventing it
To say that there is a moral duty not to X is to state that we have a right against X

Conclusion:
Pacifism is a “self-negating” or irrational doctrine - it contains a logical contradiction
Pacifism is so devout in its loyalty to nonviolence that it has no flexibility to resist or prevent that which is it deems the ultimate evil

No method of “direct resistance”
No “moral statement” condemning the evil of violence
...No choice but to reject it on grounds of rationality and logic


Two underlying presuppositions:

1) The “moral statements” we implicitly make
If violence is wrong, we should be free to utilize the strongest means (including violence) in reacting to violence

2) The “moral logic” of rights and duties
Narveson’s moral duties are “correlated” with rights
Once you state that we have a right against X, aren’t you admitting that it is right to take the steps required to protect against X ?

“To say that you have a right to X but that no one has any justification for preventing people from depriving you of X, is self-contradictory”


2. Brunk’s response

A. Narveson selects a radical pacifist ethic that not all pacifists agree with.
There are many ways to interpret the ethic of pacifism à why has Narveson selected this narrow one?

B. Contrary to Narveson, pacifists don’t refuse every form of resistance
They merely refuse to resist by certain specific means (i.e. resisting killing)

C. The commonplace notion of the “moral logic” of duties and rights is not our one and only option
Narveson said: A. Use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Universalized” duties are the only kind of moral duties
Other traditions offer other kinds of moral duty

A. Narveson’s narrow interpretation
Brunk re-classifies the ethic of pacifism:

a) The “non-resistance principle”
[Against all force, coercion, or violence]

b) The “non-violence principle”
[Against serious physical or psychological injury]

c) The “no-homicide principle”
[Against lethal force]

d) The “no-war principle”
[Against the organized mass killing of war]

Pro-pacifism arguments in Lackey’s paper:
1. Anti-killing pacifism (immorality of killing)
2. Anti-coercion pacifism (immorality of violence)
3. Private pacifism (immorality of personal violence)
4. Anti-war pacifism (immorality of war)

Critical summary question:
What are the linkages between Brunk’s and Lackey’s categories?


C. The moral logic of duties and rights
Narveson said: Use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
Universalized duties are the only valid moral duties

Ethical traditions offer other kinds of moral duty:
Ethics of virtue
“Non-secular” ethics
“Dualistic morality”

Moral standards...
Minimum baselines, below which we should never fall
Moral ideals --> ultimate aspirations, which we should always endeavour to achieve

The Overall Debate
Analytic approach
Major differences of style and strategy

Decisions to make:
Nonviolence as a duty
Self-defence as a right

15-minute essay:
1. Select one of the pro- or anti- pacifist arguments we’ve discussed (Sermon on the Mount; M.L. King jr.; Kant; Lackey)

2. Decide whether you think the argument is either convincingly challenged by Narveson or defended by Brunk.

3. Summarize the basic thrust of your position by stating it clearly in one or two sentences

4. Clearly explain one or two of your reasons for holding this view

Week 12

The Realist Alternative

‘realpolitik’

War is essentially separate from moralizing, especially from the sentimental illusions of just war theory
War is always about national interests; i.e., augmenting one’s nation’s security, power and resources

Two arguments:
Descriptive realism
War is essentially separate from moralizing and the sentimental illusions of just war theory
States simply don’t care about morals and justice—they care only about their own self-defined interests
War exists inside an extraordinary realm, wherein power and national security are the only applicable concepts, and moral concepts are literally inapplicable …

Prescriptive realism
War is about national interests—i.e., security, power, resources
… ‘War should always be about national interests’
National security, power and resources should be sole factors that decide matters of war: “the primary obligation of a national government is to the interests of the national society it represents”
Justifications for war are part of a “crusading mentality” that increases the frequency of war

The standard layout: pacifism, the just war, realism

A: Descriptive realism versus the ‘moral reality’ of war
Is war essentially separate from the sentimental illusions of just war theory? Is war impervious to moral evaluation?
The pervasiveness of just war theory
“For as long as men and women have talked about war, they have talked about it in terms of right and wrong” …Age-old just war theory has evolved so as to encompass the major dilemmas raised by war
Parallels between strategic and moral concepts
Military necessity mirrors the ethics of war—at least in regard to our language
Compare; “you shouldn’t attack civilians” with “you shouldn’t attack heavily guarded positions from the front”
Projecting values
In addition to their exclusive self-interest, nation-states also project values and ideals
The human rights discourse
In modern times, human rights are viewed as universally binding—that is, they are supposed to come before national interests, and frequently do, at least in governmental pronouncements

Do these replies overcome descriptive realism?
“States do not care about morality and justice—they only care about their national interests”
“War inhabits a special realm of power and national security, wherein moral concepts are inapplicable …”
Augmenting national security and access to natural resources is by and large viewed as the first priority of a government
Frequently, additional priorities are taken into account, but typically these are subsumed by the ultimate consideration: national interest à
In particular, the projection of national values, such as universal human rights, is regarded as secondary to the ‘primary obligation’
Should players of competitive sports only care about winning?

B: Prescriptive realism and the ethics of national interest
… Should the decision whether to embark on war always be focused on exclusive national interests?
National security and resource access should be the sole factors in deciding matters of war
Justifying war embodies a “crusading” mentality that makes war frequent

Challenges:

Near vs. distant projections of the national interest
Proximate interests seemingly go against ‘shared moral commitments’. In the long term, however, the benefits of adhering to shared moral commitments are universal
Consensus on the universality of human rights
Human rights are “real, powerful and principled limits on what realism can plausibly justify”—human rights always deserve moral priority over national interest
Do these replies successfully overcome prescriptive realism?

The ‘primary obligation’:
The primary obligation of a national government is to the interests of the national society it represents… e.g., to its military security, the integrity of its political life, and the well-being of its people
Should players of competitive sports only care about winning?
Should people make decisions about marriage & career exclusively on egoistic or self-interested grounds?

Pacifism: war in all its forms is unjustifiable -->

Just war theory: war is justifiable when it’s violence and killing are restrained and it is premised on self-defense

Principle of pacifism/nonviolence:
A personal ethic
A political doctrine
An absolute principle
A qualified principle

Teleological pacifism (TP)

“War is at odds with human development and flourishing”
Non-violence is a necessary condition of developing a decent human personality
Non-violence is tantamount to being a ‘cardinal virtue’ of human flourishing
Therefore: we should follow pacifists, and adhere to their strict rule of non-violence

Possible examples : i) satyagraha, ii) Sermon on the Mount, iii) MLK’s variant of nonviolence, iv) Ryan’s ‘impulse’

Orend’s challenge:
However, consider some other ‘virtues’:
Virtues such as these, of a non-pacifistic nature, seem equally crucial to human flourishing
Therefore, TP grounds a fragile kind of pacifism, not an absolute rule of nonviolence
Is the challenge successful?

Consider our TP examples:

Consequentialist pacifism (CP)

“The benefits of war never outweigh the costs”
Violence, killing, destruction and suffering are the recurrent circumstances of war
Therefore: to avert human suffering we should follow pacifists and adhere to their strict rule of non-violence

Orend’s challenge:
Adhering to the non-violence principle also has large costs
Certain wars might actually inhibit bloodshed:
Therefore: CP pacifists can support war whenever it is probably ‘beneficial’

No moral principle, let alone an absolute prohibition

Bottom line is a question: is non-violence likely to bring advantages?

Deontological pacifism (DP)

“War violates fundamental duties of morality and justice, such as the prohibition against killing”
Some have faith in the sanctity of human life; others support the concept of a universal right to life
These views share the same basic moral proposition: non-violence principle is crucial to morality—
Therefore: we should follow pacifists, and adhere to a strict rule of non-violence

Examples: i) Robert Holmes’s view that “no war can ever be fought justly, regardless of the ends supposedly aimed for”; ii) Narveson’s target version of pacifism; iii) Lackey’s anti-killing pacifism
Orend’s challenge:
The pacifist dilemma appears …
How should we advocate and uphold the sanctity of human life or universal right to life?

1st approach: advocate and uphold nonviolence by strict rule, admitting no exemptions

2nd approach: advocate and uphold nonviolence by actively defending against anyone guilty of aggression

Adopting the 2nd approach fails to provide an absolute rule of nonviolence
It asserts: war is justifiable when it’s violence and killing are restrained, and credibly grounded by self-defense

Is the challenge successful?
It presumably weakens absolute pacifism, and urges us to endorse a qualified nonviolence principle

My exam period contact info:

• Email questions to me at: 9msk@qlink.queensu.ca
• No specific office hours are scheduled, but no problem setting up a meeting

Final exam review

Philosophy 202
Final Exam Review Questions - April 2008

The final exam is scheduled for Wednesday, April 16, @ 9am

The exam has three parts:

• PART A (multiple choice questions)
• PART B (short answer questions)
• PART C (essay questions)

Below are suggestions for your preparation. The first section contains concepts & definitions. The second contains short-answer type questions. The last section contains a examples of essay questions.

Questions on the test are drawn from all course readings and lectures. Some questions on the test are not covered in the material below.

The following readings ARE covered on the exam…

From the P&CC package:
Walzer, “Nonviolence and the Theory of War”
Lackey, "Pacifism"
Jesus of Nazareth, "The Sermon on the Mount/The Good Samaritan"
Cheyney Ryan, “The Morality of Pacifism”
Gandhi, “The Practice of Satyagraha”
Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail"
Kant, "Perpetual Peace”
Walzer, “Just and Unjust War”
Narveson, "Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis"
Brunk, "Is Pacifism Morally Coherent? A Reply to Narveson”
Anscombe, "War and Murder"
Boonin & Oddie, "Is Killing in War Wrong?"
Fullwinder, “War and Innocence”
Alexander, “Self-Defence and the Killing of Non-combatants: A Reply to Fullwinder”
Wasserstrom, “On the Morality of War”
Ruddick, “Mothers and Men's Wars”
Ruddick, “A Women's Politics of Resistance"
Bethke Elshtain, “Is There a Feminist Tradition on War and Peace?” (P&CC)
Tobias, “Toward a Feminist Ethic of War and Peace”
Orend, “What Justifies Human Rights?”
Orend, “Can Human Rights Withstand Criticism?”

From Orend’s Morality of War:
Chapter 1: “A Sweeping history of Just War Theory”
Chapter 2: “Jus ad Bellum #1: Resisting Aggression”
Chapter 3: “Jus ad Bellum #2: Non-Classical Wars”
Chapter 4: “Jus in Bello #1: Just Conduct in War”
Chapter 5: “Jus in Bello #2: Supreme Emergencies”
Chapter 8: “Evaluating the Realist Alternative”
Chapter 9: “Evaluating the Pacifist Alternative”

The following readings IS NOT covered on the exam…
Sterba, Reconciling Pacifists and Just War Theorists”

Concepts & definitions:

Mohandas Gandhi
Leo Tolstoy
Jesus of Nazareth
Michael Walzer
St. Augustine
St. Thomas Aquinas
The war convention
International realism
Non-combatant immunity
Just cause
Carl von Clausewitz
Civil disobedience
Satyagraha
Universal pacifism
Anti-killing pacifism
Anti-coercion pacifism
Private pacifism
Anti-war pacifism
The Biblical prohibition
The sacredness of life view
The right to life argument
Christian pacifism
Intention
Self-defense
The moral exemplar argument
St. Augustine’s limited pacifism
The ancient ethic
The Jewish law
The early Christian ethic of nonviolence
Adequate justification
Thrasymachus
Militarism
The Theory of Aggression
The domestic analogy
Just war theory
Deontological pacifism
Prescriptive realism
Descriptive realism
Vitoria
Grotius
Vattel
Wolff
Universal community of humankind
Universal human rights
Laws of nature

Legal positivism
Moral convention
Human dignity
Prudence
Consequentialism
Rawls’s argument
Vital needs
Inference
Holy war
Just cause
Right intention
Proportionality
Last resort
Legitimate authority
The ‘forced to fight’ argument
The self-determination argument
Different species of human rights
Minimal justice
Security
Subsistence
Liberty
Equality
Recognition
‘Calling your shot’
Discrimination
Non-combatant immunity
Human rights inflation
Benevolent quarantine
Minimum moral standards
Ultimate moral ideals
‘Due care’ for civilians
The doctrine of double effect (DDE)
Walzer’s ‘due care’ principle
The moral reality of war
Reprisals
The moral equality of soldiers
Supreme emergency
Three components of universal human rights
‘War rights’ of soldiers
Consequentialist pacifism
Teleological pacifism
All’s fair in love and war
Thomas Hobbes
inter arma silent leges
Thucydides
realpolitik
The popular dichotomy
The ethic of care
Essentialism (as in debates on feminist ethics of war and peace)
Churchill’s consequentialism
The East Asian critique
The Feminist critique
The Marxist critique

Short answer questions

How does ‘pacifism’ enter into the current debate about the morality of war?
Do you think that human rights are universal?
Is Orend correct to say his arguments ‘defeat’ pacifism as a philosophical alternative to just war theory?
Which of the arguments for universal human rights do you find most convincing?
Describe some of the variants of pacifism we’ve examined in class, and explain in your own words which of the variants you consider most compelling.
In your own words, outline Walzer’s argument against non-violence.
In your own words, clearly describe your understanding of Walzer’s concept of the “war convention”.
What are the three components of Ruddick’s Women’s Politics of Resistance?
What are the three major positions in the ethics of war and peace?
Does the idea of a feminist ethic of war and peace necessarily “essentialize” the nature of women?
Explain the ‘inference’ argument for universal human rights by looking at the views of Henry Shue or H.L.A. Hart.
What are the main virtues and drawbacks of: i) Orend’s human rights-based framework; and ii) Walzer’s noninterventionist framework?
In your own words, state the basic moral proposition of the idea of universal human rights.
Are ‘reprisals’ morally justifiable?
Explain the role played by Argentina’s Madres (the mothers of the disappeared) in Ruddick’s arguments.
What does Anscombe mean in saying that certain views of pacifism lead to a ‘universal forgetfulness of the law against killing the innocent’?
How would you argue for the proposition that soldiers have a right to kill?
Provide a few real-world examples of international realism ‘in action’, e.g. the Truman & Acheson comments we looked at in class.
What view was being espoused by the Athenian Generals in the Melian Dialogue?
Do you think Satyagraha is an effective method of challenging political injustice?
Does Kant support the idea of a “world republic”? What are his arguments?
Do you think Satyagraha provides a convincing moral argument? What kind of moral argument do you think it establishes?
Do you think “human rights inflation” is a problem?
What are the differences between Rawls’s and Martin Luther King’s accounts of ‘civil disobedience’?
Is non-violence unique to Christianity?
How does Walzer defend just war theory against international realism?
Does the Christian idea of non-violence get beyond the “ancient ethic”?
In your own words, explain Martin Luther King’s moral argument for civil disobedience.
Are women essentially peaceful? Are men essentially warlike?
In your own words, trace out the commonplace argument that connects women, maternal practice, and anti-war points of view.
Clearly explain why you think Gandhi’s Satyagraha either does or does not establish non-violence as an absolute moral principle.
Is it justifiable to break the law for political reasons?
What is the foundation of Kant’s perpetual peace idea?
What are the major problems with Kant’s idea of pacifism?
Has Orend successfully ‘defeated’ the ‘pacifist alternative’ to just war theory?
Locate and the following quotation and put it into context: ‘The primary obligation of a national government is to the interests of the national society it represents’.
In your own words, explain Ruddick’s vision of a ‘feminist material peace politics’, and explain how it represents a strong feminist contribution to the morality of war debate.
Evaluate the claim that there is no such thing as a supreme emergency.
Explain some of the major differences between the two major just war frameworks.
Are consequences all that matter in considering just war issues?
What are Orend’s jus in bello constraints? What additional constraints has Orend added to the traditional conception?
Does Ruddick agree with the assertion that women ‘exemplify the commitment to non-violence’? What reasons does she give?
Is there a significant difference between Britain’s bombing of German cities and use of the atom bomb on Japanese cities?
Explain the ‘central dichotomy’ that Ruddick sees in the commonplace connection between masculinity and violence.
Explain how Cheyney Ryan makes use of Orwell’s famous allegory of the vulnerable fascist.
Is the issue of international realism important? What arguments support realism?

Example essay questions

What is ‘the domestic analogy’ and how does it relate to Walzer’s Theory of Aggression?
Is non-violent resistance to aggression likely to succeed?
Do you agree with the way Orend categorizes the human rights arguments?
Explain ONE of Lackey’s variants of pacifism, and give your own argument explaining his challenge against this variant is successful.
Explain the major steps and issues at stake in the Narveson/Brunk debate on the morality of pacifism.

Week 11

jus in bello p. 1: “Just Conduct during War”

jus in bello principles:
Discrimination
Proportionality

“A legitimate target is anyone or anything which is engaged in harming”

Non-combatants (civilians) always retain human rights
Soldiers forfeit their human rights (until surrender)
Legitimate targets should be attacked with appropriate (proportional) force
“Military necessity” should be tightly restrained

Five major controversies:
Non-combatant immunity
Responsibilities of soldiers
War rights of soldiers
Benevolent quarantine
Reprisals

Non-combatant immunity
Absolute prohibition (never kill civilians)
The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)
Walzer’s ‘due care’ principle

Responsibilities of soldiers

War rights of soldiers

Benevolent quarantine
(torture and other mistreatment of surrendered soldiers (POWs))

Reprisals
(deliberate jus in bello violations responding to prior violations by the enemy side)

Two approaches:
Orend’s (foremost) human rights framework
Walzer’s (seemingly less-significant) nonaggression framework

Benevolent quarantine
Is mistreatment or physical torture of POWs ever acceptable? Under what conditions?
Torturing accused terrorists to extract life-saving information
Which of the two major approaches (Orend’s or Walzer’s) best articulates your views on the ethics of benevolent quarantine?

Reprisals
Should reprisals be accepted into jus in bello?
Should just war theory countenance deliberate violations of jus in bello which respond directly to prior violations by the enemy side?

Detention camps
Trench warfare
Nuclear war

Walzer: only in extraordinary circumstances
Orend: not in any circumstances
Which of the two major approaches (Orend’s or Walzer’s) best articulates your views on the ethics of reprisals?

jus in bello p.2: “Supreme Emergency” exemption?

The problem
How do we specify the conditions of a supreme emergency?
The typical real-world cases
Orend’s five options

The problem
What are the limits of jus in bello rules? Is it ever right to suspend them?
Suspending jus in bello rules appears to render them non-compulsory
Is supreme emergency a moral loophole?
Supreme emergency in a post-9/11 world

What’s needed is a principled method
Something similar in structure to MLK’s ‘civil disobedience’
Need to clarify the underlying principles
Use them to lay out a principled exemption
King’s principled method:
Legal rules sustain our society:
We comply with the legal order
We consent to the legal order
“An unjust law is no law at all” (St. Augustine)
Unjust law is human law not rooted in eternal and natural law (St. Thomas Aquinas)
The eternal law:
Any law that uplifts the human personality is just
Any law that degrades the human personality is unjust
Finally, “one who breaks the law must do so openly, lovingly and with willingness to accept personal penalties”

Defining “supreme emergency”?
Orend & Walzer’s conditions:
Evidence that the aggressor is about to entirely defeat the victim
Evidence that the occupying aggressor will institute a policy of massacre or enslavement
Not merely defeat; slaughter, slavery and total catastrophe

Real-world cases:
Britain’s WWII firebombing of German civilians
vs.
Dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities to end WWII
Torturing terrorists to extract life-saving confessions
vs.
Terrorism as a political tactic

Finding some kind of “reflective equilibrium”:

Orend’s five options:
Ways to deal with the supreme emergency exemption
No such thing as supreme emergency
Churchill’s consequentialism
Absolute non-combatant immunity
Walzer’s ‘dirty hands’ approach

Prudential strategy
No such thing as supreme emergency
Wrong to suspend jus in bello
A gaping loophole, which we need to seal off
The exemption is necessarily open-ended and self-serving
Once again, we see a form of the ‘pacifist dilemma’

Churchill’s consequentialism
Right to suspend jus in bello in desperate situations
It’s wrong to concede defeat against aggression
We have a duty to protect humanity
Nagel’s problem: hostile treatment of any person must be justified in terms of something about that person which makes the treatment appropriate

Absolute non-combatant immunity
Adhere strictly to jus in bello
Only this will validate and reinforce our common humanity
But, what about a government’s duty to protect citizens?

Walzer’s ‘dirty hands’ approach
Right to suspend jus in bello in desperate situations
It remains always wrong to kill civilians intentionally
Civilians’ rights are genuine
Killing them in war is tantamount to mass murder
Civilian killings are nevertheless justified in supreme emergencies
We excuse the conduct of soldiers and decision-makers
But, condemn their conduct by public shaming

Moral tragedy / Prudential strategy
Right to suspend jus in bello in desperate situations
It remains always wrong to kill civilians intentionally
The situation pits morality against the survival instinct
Owing to the duress of the situation, we excuse the victim’s actions, but never justify them
The whole thing is a wretched moral tragedy; no matter what you do, you’re wrong

Week 10

Three issues:

• “Anticipations”
• Civil wars
• “Interventions”

Carefully enlarging the just cause condition of just war theory

“Pre-emptive” war
Problem: forcing states to wait to be attacked in spite of increasing risks is not a reasonable insistence
Major distinction: preventive vs. pre-emptive war
i) U.S. invasion of Iraq (2003); ii) Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (the ‘Six Day War’)

Civil war
Questions: Is it just to begin a civil war? Is it just to intervene on behalf of one of the factions?
Examples: i) U.S. Civil War (1860-1865); ii) U.S. war in Vietnam (1960-75)

“Humanitarian” war (i.e. interventions)
Definition: coercive military action not against previous aggression, but instead meant to protect civilians in a foreign country from abuse by their own government
Major distinction: U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping vs. ‘humanitarian military intervention’
Examples: i) war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (92-95); ii) Somalia (92-94); iii) Serbia/Kosovo (1999)

Carefully enlarging the just cause condition of just war theory
Two possible strategies / two interpretations of aggression:

• Orend’s human rights framework
• Walzer’s nonaggression framework

Orend’s human rights framework
Six jus ad bellum constraints

1. Just cause
2. Right intention
3. Public declaration by a legitimate authority
4. Last resort
5. Probability of success
6. Proportionality

• War is justified only if it satisfies the complete package
• War is unjustified if it fails any one

Aggression, ‘minimal justice’ and sovereignty rights
“Aggression” is the violent attack of basic human rights
Not all sovereign states have state sovereignty rights e.g., rights to territory and political independence
Societies which fail to uphold the “minimal moral code” forfeit all sovereignty rights

Content of the Minimal Moral Code:
Minimal moral code = protection of basic human rights
Basic human rights = Orend’s “foundational five”:

1. Security
2. Subsistence
3. Liberty
4. Equality
5. Recognition

This is the human rights-conception of ‘legitimacy’
Under Orend’s framework, “regimes which fail the conditions of minimal justice are not legitimate, and thus have no state rights, including the right not to be attacked or overthrown” (Orend, pp. 97)

Walzer’s theory of aggression

1. There exists a society of independent sovereign states
2. This society establishes basic rights of members—above all, rights to territory and sovereignty
3. The threat or use of force against the another sovereign state constitutes aggression, which is a crime
4. The crime of aggression justifies two responses: wars of self-defence, and wars of law enforcement
5. Nothing but aggression justifies war
6. Once the aggressor has been successfully resisted, it can also legitimately be punished

“Aggression” is a violent attack against a sovereign state
Under the theory of aggression, sovereign states enjoy protection via ‘the rule of non-intervention’

Sovereignty rights go to all recognized states
(i.e. those able to hold together a government, control and defend territory, speak to other governments
Under Walzer’s ‘nonaggression’ framework, we ‘presume’ that each ‘recognized’ state is legitimate
All recognized states are given the rights of territory and political independence

What is a sovereign state?
A political community

What are the foundations of sovereignty rights

• The rights of human beings (i.e. as individuals)?
• The rights of political communities (i.e. in groups)?

Pre-emptive war

• Pre-emption is armed attack where the victim strikes first in anticipation of an attack that is coming in the near future
• Example: Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (the ‘Six Day War’)

A. Orend: Human Rights Maximization
“Sufficient threat”:
Manifest intent to injure
Active preparation
A situation where waiting greatly magnifies the risks of being attacked

B. Walzer: Penalizing Aggression
“States may use armed force against threats of war whenever failure to do so would seriously risk their territorial integrity or political independence”
Under such circumstances, it can fairly be said that they have been forced to fight and are the victims of aggression”

Civil war

• Is it just to begin a civil war? Is it just for foreign countries to take sides on behalf of one faction?
• Example: i) U.S. Civil War (1860-1865)

A. Orend’s approach: Human Rights Maximization
Both questions are answered in terms of ‘minimal justice
When both sides are legitimate, we imagine a “no-fault divorce”
(one side desire to be separate, and thus divide assets, liabilities, and dependants according to the law)

B. Walzer: Maximizing Self-Determination
Walzer’s sole concern is whether foreign countries should intervene in a civil war
Inside a sovereign state, self-determination should prevail

“When, if ever, is taking sides justified?”

Only when a foreign country has prematurely intervened – i.e., only in situations of “counter intervention”

Humanitarian military interventions

• Coercive military action not against previous aggression, but instead meant to protect civilians in a foreign country from abuse by their own government
• Examples: i) Bosnia-Herzegovina (92-95); ii) Somalia (92-94); Serbia/Kosovo (1999)

A. Orend’s approach: Human Rights Maximization
Not all sovereign states have state sovereignty rights
Societies failing to uphold the “minimal moral code” forfeit sovereignty rights
When a state is found to be illegitimate, “it has no ethical reason to exist”
Becomes permissible for foreign countries to undertake an ‘invasive military response’

Emerging consensus on conditions for legitimate intervention:
When states are unwilling or unable to control and provide security portions of their territory
When state governments are culpable for massive or systematic human rights violations such as genocide
When the victimized population appeals to the outside world for assistance
When it is reasonable to believe intervention will succeed

--> The Responsibility to Protect (2001)

B. Walzer’s approach: ‘Presumptive Legitimacy’
We ‘presume’ each state to be legitimate
All states are entitled to rights to territory and political independence
Humanitarian military intervention is only permissible:

Against conflicts that ‘shock the collective conscience of humankind’
To deter genocide, massacre, or enslavement
Under Walzer’s ‘nonaggression’ framework, we ‘presume’ that each ‘recognized’ state is legitimate
All recognized states are given the rights of territory and political independence

What are Walzer’s arguments?

• The forced to fight argument
• The self-determination argument

jus ad bellum #2 Non-Standard Wars
(...from Tuesday)

Strengths of both sides of just war theory:

• Clear moral distinctions
• Clear assignment of moral responsibility
• Setting incentives & and promoting deterrence

---> Carefully enlarging the just cause condition of just war theory

Growing consensus on legitimacy of military intervention:

• When states are unwilling or unable to control and provide security portions of their territory
• When state governments are culpable for massive or systematic human rights violations such as genocide
• When the victimized population appeals to the outside world for assistance
• When it is reasonable to believe intervention will succeed

--> The Responsibility to Protect (ICISS, 2001)

Orend’s human rights framework

Not all sovereign states have state sovereignty rights e.g., rights to territory and political independence
Societies which fail to uphold the “minimal moral code” forfeit all sovereignty rights
Orend says: “regimes which fail the conditions of minimal justice are not legitimate, and thus have no state rights, including the right not to be attacked or overthrown” (Orend, pp. 97)

Six jus ad bellum constraints:

Just cause

Humanitarian military intervention
(Anticipatory war)
(Civil war)

Right intention
Public declaration by a legitimate authority
Last resort
Probability of success
Proportionality

• War is justified only if it satisfies the package
• War is unjustified if it fails one constraint

Incidents of humanitarian military intervention:

Bosnia-Herzegovina (92-95);
Somalia (92-94);
Kosovo (1999)

Walzer’s nonaggression framework
Under the theory of aggression, sovereign states enjoy protection through ‘the rule of non-intervention’
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" (U.N. Charter, Ch. 1, Art. 2, #4)

Sovereignty rights go to all recognized states
(i.e. those governments which can hold together a central government, control their territory, communicate diplomatically with other governments)

‘Presumptive Legitimacy’
Humanitarian military intervention is only permissible:
Into conflicts that ‘shock the collective conscience of humankind’
Wherever genocide, massacre, or mass enslavement are occurring

Under Walzer’s ‘nonaggression’ framework:
We ‘presume’ each state is legitimate
But, we ‘disregard’ the rule of non-intervention whenever genocide, massacre, or enslavement are occurring

What are Walzer’s arguments?
The forced to fight argument
The communal integrity argument

What are the foundations of Walzer’s sovereignty rights?
The rights of human beings?
The rights of political communities?

jus in bello p. 1: “Just Conduct in War”
“A legitimate target is anyone or anything which is engaged in harming”
Non-combatants (civilians) retain their human rights
Soldiers (until surrender) forfeit their human rights
Legitimate targets should be attacked with appropriate force

Components in Orend’s jus in bello discussion

1. Discrimination
2. The doctrine of double effect (DDE)
3. Non-combatant immunity
4. Benevolent quarantine (for captured POWs)
5. ‘Due care’ (for innocent civilians)
6. Proportionality
7. Military methods which are ‘evil in themselves’
8. Reprisals

Two standard jus in bello principles:

1. Discrimination
2. Proportionality

Five major controversies:

1. Non-combatant immunity
2. Responsibilities of soldiers
3. ‘War rights’ of soldiers
4. Benevolent quarantine (torture of captive POWs)
5. Reprisals

Discrimination

• Non-combatant immunity
• Responsibilities of soldiers
• ‘War rights’ of soldiers
• Benevolent quarantine (torture of captive POWs)

Proportionality

• Reprisals

1. Discrimination
Non-combatant immunity

• Why should we discriminate between soldiers and civilians? Why is a soldier a justified target? Why is a civilian not a justified target? How do we mark the distinction in battlefield situations?
  

Responsibilities of soldiers

• Shouldn’t we also hold soldiers responsible for the justice of their wars?

‘War rights’ of soldiers

• Why do soldiers have the ‘right to kill’ enemy soldiers? Are all soldiers liable to be killed?

Benevolent quarantine (torture of captive POWs)

• Why shouldn’t we torture captured enemy combatants?

2. Proportionality
Reprisals

• Should just war theory sanction deliberate violations of jus in bello that respond to prior violations by the enemy side?

Non-combatant immunity

• Why should we discriminate between soldiers and civilians?

• How strict should we be about non-combatant immunity?

• Absolute prohibition (i.e. never kill innocent civilians)

• The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)

• Walzer’s ‘due care’ principle

Responsibilities of soldiers

• Why shouldn’t we hold soldiers responsible for the justice & legality of their wars?
• Is there a clear distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello?

‘War rights’ of soldiers

• Why do soldiers have the ‘right to kill’ enemy soldiers?
• Where do they acquire such a right?
• What enables us to say that soldiers have ‘given up’ their right to life

Torture of prisoners (benevolent quarantine)

• Why shouldn’t we torture enemy combatants (if the payoff is positive)?
• When (if ever) is physical torture of POWs acceptable?
• Which of the two approaches to JWT (Orend’s or Walzer’s) best explains benevolent quarantine?

The doctrine of reprisal

• Should just war theory tolerate deliberate violations of jus in bello that respond to prior violations by the enemy side?

• Should reprisals be justifiable within jus in bello?

Walzer’s answer: in extraordinary circumstances
Orend’s answer: not in any circumstances

Week 9

The human rights-based conception:

Everyone, regardless of who they are or where they happen to live, is deserving of a minimum standard of treatment -->

Human rights are so basic they should be respected at all times, for every person, no matter what the cost

Violations of human rights are acceptable only if they will provide greater protection of human rights


Three general critiques:

1. The Marxist critique
2. The Feminist critique
3. The East Asian critique
   

The Marxist critique

Human rights are part of the mythology of market society, useful because they create a comforting illusion of freedom and equalityHuman rights are not universal, and serve to entrench and perpetuate market society
Free markets typically benefit a small ruling elite by violently repressing a powerless “working class”They evolved in the context of market society, ..... their purpose has always been to create ideal conditions for the functioning of a free market

The feminist critique

Human rights are rooted in a male ethic that presupposes isolated individuals in a context of natural competition
Human rights are not universal because they disregard a large branch of our moral vocabulary, i.e. concepts of community, care and nurturing
Human rights imply a vision of people as “artificial and assertive, calculating and competitive, disconnected and disadvantageous”, and downplay communal and care ideas

And by entrenching universal human rights, we inadvertently advance facets of human nature that are calculating and competitive
But, women’s liberation and indeed other liberation movements have always appealed to the notion of universal rights

The “East Asian” critique

Central claim: human rights are not universal, but instead are “arrogantly Eurocentric”
Human rights are rooted in Western European ideas about human nature and political community, which not all societies share

Orend’s answers:

The Eurocentrism criticism says human rights are chauvinistic because they originated in Western Europe... “But just because the good idea of human rights can out of Western Europe doesn’t mean other cultures should resist it.”

Alongside processes of globalization, a true cross-cultural consensus is currently evolving

• “It does not seem arrogant to suggest that everyone wants their own vital needs met, and that reasonable people agree that it is only fair that everyone gets that objects of their vital needs”Human rights are rooted in Western European ideas about human nature and political community, which not all societies share
  

Some non-European societies put a high priority on heritage, culture, family loyalty, and values of community

• If enforced worldwide, universal human rights could grind down “collectivistic values” of community, family and culture, potentially undermining whole societies

Orend’s response:

• There is plenty of room for collectivistic values above the minimal threshold

Orend’s interpretation of Just War Theory

• “A coherent set of concepts and values which enables moral judgments in wartime”The history of the just war tradition is the gradual accumulation of these wartime constraints
  
• “The principles of just war theory serve to fulfill the human rights of persons as best they can be fulfilled in times of war”

Central question:

• Where does the just war tradition acquire moral authority?
  Religious tradition?

Weight of deeply-rooted history?
Integrity of a coherent theory?
Universal human rights?
The rights of the sovereign state?
Utilitarianism?

Two current frameworks:

Orend’s human rights-based framework
vs.
Walzer’s statist or noninterventionist framework

The foundation in universal human rights

The early debate:

• Augustine --> Aquinas (AD 300-1300)

Universal moral community

• Vitoria --> Grotius (1500-1600)

Various ‘statist’ alternatives

• Vattel --> Wolff(1650-1750)(“legal positivism”)
• Hobbes --> von Clausewitz (1650-1850)(“international realism”)
• Hedley Bull & the ‘English School’(the ‘morality of states’)

Modern codification:

Hague Conventions (1899, 1907)
U.N. Anti-Genocide Convention (1948)
The U.N. Charter (1945)
Nuremburg Military Tribunal (1946)
Geneva Conventions (1949)

Modern international society:

• Everyone, regardless of who they are or where they live, is entitled to a minimum standard of treatment -->

Preamble to the U.N. Charter (Dec. 1948):

• “The peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”
• “Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms”

• Human rights violations are acceptable only if they are intended to protect other human rights (i.e. for security and stability)
  

The Responsibility to Protect (2001)



The “Post-Walzer” debate

• Walzer’s (1977) book Just and Unjust Wars set out to modernize the just war tradition.

Two propositions:

• Allies in WWII constituted a just war
• The U.S. in Vietnam constituted an unjust war

How does Walzer explain the difference?

• States have basic “sovereignty rights” like individuals have human rights within domestic society (call this “the domestic analogy”)
• We understand the rights of states just as we do individual rights: violence is acceptable only for purposes of self-defence

Walzer’s theory of aggression

1. There exists a society of independent sovereign states
2. This society establishes basic rights of members—above all, rights to territory and sovereignty
3. The threat or use of force against the another sovereign state constitutes aggression, which is a crime
4. The crime of aggression justifies two responses: wars of self-defence, and wars of law enforcement
5. Nothing but aggression justifies war
6. Once the aggressor has been successfully resisted, it can also legitimately be punished

What are the objects of Walzer’s state sovereignty rights?

• Rights of human beings (i.e. individuals)
• Rights of political communities (i.e. groups of individuals)

Which types of entity have rights?

• Primarily sovereign states
• What is the primary moral rule?

What types of argument does Walzer offer?

• The forced to fight argument
  Presumption of armed resistance
  
• The self-determination argument
  Preconditions of human rights
  The value of self-government

Walzer’s critics uniformly condemned the theory:

• Critics such as Richard Wasserstrom, David Luban, Charles Beitz, Gerald Doppelt
• Walzer’s way of anchoring sovereignty rights in the rights of individuals is unclear or inadequate
• Walzer derives sovereignty rights from an anti-human rights frameworkThe post-cold war debate:

Geopolitical context after 1989-91:

• New challenges to state sovereignty
• Economic and social globalization
• Impact of genocidal crimes in Rwanda and Bosnia

The current trend:

• Additional Geneva Protocols (1977-)
• Crimes against humanity...'
• Chemical weapons treaty (95, 02, 04-)
• Land mines treaty (97-)
• U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (1993)
• The International Criminal Court (1998)

• The Responsibility to Protect (2001)

The human rights-based conception

• Orend’s six jus ad bellum constraints
• Constraints are a combined package
• A war is justified only if it satisfies the full package
• A war is unjustified if it fails one constraint

Just cause
Right intention
Public declaration by a legitimate authority
Last resortProbability of success
Proportionality

Minimal justice and state rights

• Not all sovereign states have rights to territory and sovereignty
• Societies which fail to express “minimal justice” forfeit their rights against other states
• In other words, it becomes permissible for foreign nations to undertake an ‘invasive military response’

Content of the Minimal Moral Code

• Minimal justice = protection of basic human rights
• Basic human rights = Orend’s “foundational five”:
  Security
  Subsistence
  Liberty
  Equality
  Recognition

Weeks 7 & 8

Wasserstrom, “On the Morality of War”

Two purposes:

• Explain and undermine “international realism”
• Outline the dilemmas of killing in times of war
  (ethical dilemmas for the just war doctrine)

Recap

Non-violence:

• As a personal ethic
• As a political doctrine

• As an absolute principle
• As a qualified principle
  

1. What arguments are found in Western intellectual history to support an ethics of pacifism and non-violence?
2. Under what conditions is it justifiable to attack or kill another person?
3. Is war justifiable? Based on what conditions?

Three most important positions on the ethics of war:

1. Pacifism & nonviolence
2. The just war doctrine
3. International realism

Just war doctrine: constraints & major controversies

jus ad bellum
jus in bello

jus ad bellum

1. Just cause
   Military aggression & self-defence?
   Pre-emptive war?
   “Humanitarian military intervention”?
2. Legitimate authority
3. Right intention
4. Likelihood of success
5. Proportionality
6. Last resort

jus in bello

1. Proportionality
2. Non-combatant immunity:

Absolute immunity? The doctrine of double effect? Walzer’s doctrine of double effect?

Pacifism & non-violence

Universal human rights

Just war doctrine

Wasserstrom’s challenge to “international realism”

International realism –
Essence of the position:

• Morality is inapplicable to the assessment of war
• Discussion of peace and justice in debates about war is naive, irresponsible or totally absurd
• “In matters of war, morality has no place”
• “The war in Vietnam may be stupid, unwise, or against the interests of the United States... It is neither immoral nor unjust—not because it is moral, or just—because these descriptions are in this context either naive or meaningless or inapplicable”

International realism and the “ancient ethic”

• Athenian Generals argued in the Melian Dialogue:
• “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”
  
• von Clausewitz said that
• “War is the continuation of politics by other means”
  
• Thrasymachus argued that:
• “Justice is the advantage of the stronger”
  
• Hans Morganthau said that:
• “The state has no right to let its moral disapprobation… get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the principle of national survival”

Main variants:

• Descriptive realism
• Analytic realism
• Prescriptive realism

Descriptive international realism asserts:

• Matters of war are uniformly decided on grounds of national interest or expediency rather than by appeals to what is moral
• Allowing morality to enter the war debate is a category mistake
• To talk in moral terms is naive
  
• Athenian Generals:
  “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”
  
• von Clausewitz:
  “War is the continuation of politics by other means”
  
• William Tecumseh Sherman said:
  “War is hell”

• These are a factual claims
• Decided by looking at the empirical facts
  

Answering descriptive international realism

• We frequently do see examples of nations placing morality over national interests
• National interests are always coupled with national values and ideals
  
• Harry Truman & Dean Acheson:
  
• Truman after dropping atomic bombs (August 6 &9 ’45):
  
• “Having found the bomb we have to use it. We have used it against those who have attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbour, against those who have starved and beaten our prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretence of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans”
  
• Acheson during Cuban Missile Crisis (October ‘62):
  
• “Judgment centred on appraisal of dangers and risks, weighing of the need for decisive and effective action against considerations of prudence; the need to do enough, against the consequences of doing too little. Moral talk did not bear upon the problem.”
  
• Are matters of war (always?) decided via national interest and expediency, rather than by appealing to moral considerations?
• Disregarding and suppressing moral considerations?

Analytic international realism asserts:

• Morality is meaningless in times of war
• War is an exceptional realm where “anything goes”
• War is a unique because everything is permissible
• To talk in moral terms is absurd
  
• Two underlying propositions:
• Universal proposition that all morality is meaningless
• Scepticism about the absence of international law

Answering analytic international realism:

• All morality is meaningless...
• All of us appear to understand “moral language”
• Moral considerations are intelligible
  
• Scepticism about international law...
• The law isn’t the complete moral story
  
• Our moral language offers more than concepts of condemnation and punishment

Wasserstrom’s diagnosis:

• —War presents a “most troublesome moral dilemma”
• Accusation that one’s country is involved in an unjust war is personally very threatening
• Penalties for opposition and resistance

The relief is immediate; the moral heat is off

--> War is unique because everything is permissible??
--> War is unique because killing and violence are permissible in contexts and conditions they otherwise would not be

Prescriptive international realism asserts:

• Matters pertaining to war should always be decided on grounds of national interest or expediency rather than any discussion of what is moral
• In the context of war, talking in moral terms is irresponsible and wrong
  
• Thrasymachus argued that:
• “Justice is the advantage of the stronger”
  
• Hans Morganthau said:
• “The state has no right to let its moral disapprobation… get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the principle of national survival”
  
• Truman in August ’45:
• “Having found the bomb we have to use it. We have used it against those who have attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbour, against those who have starved and beaten our prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretence of obeying international laws of warfare.”
  
• “We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans”

Two main arguments:

1. Moralizing is always a source of increasing conflict
   National interests always should outweigh other moral considerations
2. Only for those involved in political leadership, national interests always should outweigh other considerations

Human rights: foundations and criticisms

The human rights concept:

• All human beings, regardless of who we are, and where we were born, are owed a minimum standard of treatment à
• Some basic human needs and interests are so important they should be respected at all times, for every person, no matter what it will cost à
• When human rights come into conflict with the social good, rights trump overall good

Different species:

• Legal rights
• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“The Charter”)
• Criminal Code of Canada (“CCC”)
  
• Moral rights
• “Values that respect the dignity and worth of each person”
• “Rights” of self-determination
• It’s wrong to deceive your friend on purpose
  
• Universal human rights
• Rights located in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of 1948
• Rights that against genocide, slavery, torture and so on
  
• Virtually the same spirit:
• Certain needs and interests are so crucial they should be respected all the time, for every human being, no matter what it will cost
  
• When human rights come into conflict with the social good, rights trump overall good

Three components:

• A right held by individuals
• A right held universally
• A right held equally

The human rights-based political ideal:

• The only thing capable of dislodging our universal duty to protect human rights is when those in question have already forfeited their rights by performing their own prior acts of human rights violation
• Violations of human rights are justified only in situations where they are intended to protect other human rights

The human rights revolution:

Growing & globalizing

• U.N. Declaration of HR (1948)
• U.N. Genocide Convention (1948)
• U.N. Human Rights Council (1946)
  
• The Council of Europe “Statute #1” (1949)
• Regional treaties (OAS Charter)
• National Charters of Rights
  
• U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (1993)
• The International Criminal Court (1998)

Deepening

• Basic human rights
• Civil & Political Rights
• Social Rights
• Minority & Group Rights
• Environmental Rights

Orend’s foundations:

1. Religion as justification
2. Legal positivism
3. Moral convention
4. Prudence
5. Rawls’s argument
6. Human dignity
7. Consequentialism
8. Inference
9. Vital needs

“Human rights inflation”:

• Basic rights vs. equality rights
• John Rawls talks of “human rights proper”:
• The right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property, and the right to formal equality
• Natural context: international society
  
• Modern society has cultivated an open concept:
• A human rights violation is any situation where your equality or status before the law is being neglected
• People seek redress at their “human rights office”
• Natural context: a functioning democracy

• Minimum moral standards below which we should not fall
  vs.
• Ultimate moral ideals toward which we should strive

Foundations

• Start with “elements of a good justification”:
• What standards of justification are we working with?
• To show adequate grounds for people to believe in the truth of a proposition and guide their conduct by it
  
• Every justification should rest on some set of premises and principles using a valid chain of reasoning
  
• Preferably, via set of “mutually supporting” claims
  
• Is moral/political debate different from justification and science and logic?
• Science and logic:
• 1+1 = 2
• When heated to 100%, pure H20 turns into vapour (?!)
  
• Arts, ethics and culture:
• All 20th century painting leads back to Picasso
• “It is wrong to lie under oath in court”
• “It is wrong to murder your friends and relatives”
• “We are all owed a minimum standard of treatment of vital human needs and interests”

Three basic strategies:

• Law of nature / human nature
• The social contract
• Positive laws and moral conventions

Striving for universality:

• The universal community of humankind
• Universal friendship
• Whittled down to a basic minimum
  
• Against international realism
• Against particularism & state-ism

Moral convention

• Shared beliefs in a living society
• Custom and regular ethical practice
• Orend’s problem: some cultures resist human rights
  
• Walzer’s answer: thick and thin morality

Human dignity

• “The inherent dignity of human beings”
• Failing to protect human rights violates human dignity
  
• Orend’s problem: “substantial vagueness”
• Is the value of human dignity self-evident?
• How can we improve this argument?

Consequentialism

• Our benchmark should always be: advancing human happiness, promoting well-being
• Human rights have an impressive record of promoting happiness and well-being, so we should always obey them
• Problem: if well-being is our benchmark, why shouldn’t we torture terrorists?
  “Consequentialist” human rights have shrunk completely from our original vision

Inference:

• Hart’s argument: every specific entitlement implies at least one general right
  (i.e., a general right to freedom)
• The general right to freedom is a prototype for universal human rights
  
• Problems:
• Seems to make human rights inferior to “lesser” rights
• Leads to a (single) right of liberty too narrow compared to what human rights advocates desire

Here’s the structure of Hart’s argument:

1. Everyone has a right to something
2. Some other things are necessary for enjoying the first thing as a right, whatever the first thing is
   
3. Therefore, everyone also has rights to the other things that are necessary for enjoying the first as a right

• Shue’s expansion:
  
• Basic rights include: i) security of the person, ii) basic subsistence and iii) fundamental liberties
• These ones are prior to all other rights
  
• One can’t have any entitlements without antecedent having basic rights satisfied

Three strategies:

1. Human nature
2. The social contract
3. Moral convention

Striving towards universality:

• Universal community of human beings
• Universal friendship
• Towards a basic minimum

• Minimum moral standards below which we should never fall
  vs.
• Ultimate moral ideals toward which all of us should strive

Three critiques:

1. The Marxist critique
2. The Feminist critique
3. The East Asian critique

The Marxist critique

• Human rights function only within a market society
• The central claim: Human rights are not universal, and have relevance only in a market society

Defects of market society

• Market society is composed of individual people
• We all have roughly the same basic needs in terms of survival, shelter, nutrition, development, self-respect
• But, people in a market society occupy vastly different roles:
  
• Some are owners, who maintain control of producing what is needed for survival and flourishing
• Others are workers who need their jobs to survive, and have very little bargaining power over those who employ them
  
• Owners become more free, always able to provide basic needs for themselves using the “surplus value” contributed by their workers
• Workers become alienated, unable to control their lives, subject to repression by owners
  Marx’s conclusion:

Human rights are part of the mythology of market society:

• They exist primarily to create an illusion of universal freedom and equality
• They steer peoples’ minds away from their own economic entrapment and exploitation
• They evolved in the context of market society, and their purpose has always been to create ideal conditions for the functioning of a free market
  
• But free markets typically benefit a small ruling elite by violently repressing a powerless ‘working class’
• By entrenching and enforcing human rights, we advance defective capitalism

The central claim: Human rights are not universal, and have relevance only in a market society

• Orend’s answer: in the modern world, human rights are nevertheless genuinely universal minimal standards of decent treatment

The feminist critique

The central claim: Human rights are actually derived from a “male ethic”

• Within the male ethic, we often presuppose: i) isolated and separate individuals, against ii) a natural background of social competition
• The male ethic is “artificial and assertive, calculating and competitive, disconnected and disadvantageous”
• Whereas other forms of ethical language involve concepts of community, care and nurturing
  
• By entrenching universal human rights, we inadvertently advance the facets of human nature that are calculating and competitive
  
• Orend’s answer:
• Women’s liberation has always involved the notion of rights

The “East Asian” challenge

The central claim: Human rights are rooted in Western European ideas about the nature of people and society

• Non-European societies (e.g., those in China, Malaysia, India, and throughout Africa) often do not share these ideas
• These typically attach high value to culture, heritage, public spirit, and the common good, compared with European societies
• Human rights inevitably erode core social values
  
• Human rights are not universal, and actually are unique European creations that could potentially cause great harm if enforced globally

15 minute essay on universal human rights

1. Choose one of justification for international human rights and one challenge
2. Decide where you stand. Do you believe the justification OR the challenge rests on a stronger rationale?
3. Clearly explain the reasoning behind your stance
4. 4. Give support for your position (facts and/or arguments)