POLS7503 Ethics and Human Rights — Seminar 1: Introduction and Seminar #2: Prevailing Theories of Ethics
POLS7503 Ethics and Human Rights
Coordinating Unit: School of Political Science and International Studies
Semester: Semester 1, 2017 to Semester 1, 2017 (TP4)
Mode: Intensive
Level: Postgraduate Coursework
Location: St Lucia
Course Description:
This course addresses key ethical dilemmas in world politics. It begins by surveying the main ethical traditions in international relations, such as cosmopolitanism, communitarianism, feminism and postcolonialism. The course then engages a range of practical issues, including human rights, international law, humanitarian intervention and poverty. Lectures and seminar discussions alternate with alternative teaching methods, including participatory learning and simulation exercises.
Course Aims
The seminar sessions are divided into two parts.
The first part investigates traditions of international ethics in an attempt to demonstrate how we have come to think about issues of peace, morality and justice in global politics. The objective of this part is to provide students with the conceptual and theoretical framework necessary to understand a variety of ethical dilemmas that are central to international relations today. Among the questions addressed in this part are the following:
- Is there room for morality in a world dominated by realist values?
- What political level is appropriate to formulate and implement ethical frameworks (the community, the state or some global institution)?
- What is the role of international law, human rights and humanitarian organisations?
- Can world governance and perpetual peace be achieved?
- Is it possible to formulate universal moral values without violating cultural difference?
At the end of part one, students should possess the capability to assess ethical issues in a critical and independent way.
The second part consists of a series of cases and issue-specific investigations that illustrate the practical dimension of debates about ethics in international politics. Among the issues to be examined here are human rights, torture, free speech and hate speech, and emotions and post-conflict situations.
Course Introduction:
Because questions of ethics and human rights deal with relationships between people, with the moral dimensions of human behaviour, they are normative in nature. This is to say that they deal with the question of how one ought to act under certain circumstances. The purpose of this course is to investigate the significance of this ethical question to the theory and practice of international politics.
Rather than providing a ready-made moral model or upholding particular principles, the key objective of the course is to provide students with the ability to analyse ethical issues from a broad range of vantage points. To do so, the first part of the course introduces the most common ethical traditions, discussing the similarities and differences between them. The second part of the course then applies the so-acquired conceptual skills to several concrete situations, issues and problems, exploring human rights, torture, free speech and hate speech, and emotions and post-conflict situations.
Seminar #1 : Introduction:
What is Ethics?
Introduction
What is Human Rights?
Introduction
One view on Ethical Theories:
Why STUDY International Ethics?
“International politics has an unavoidable ethical dimension… Assertions of right and wrong conduct, good and bad outcomes, moral requirements and legal prohibitions, those who do and do not warrant equal ethical consideration are powerful and prevalent aspects of international politics.”
Toni Erskine, ‘’Normative IR Theory’, in Dunne et al (eds) International Relations Theories, 2010, p37
Introductions to each Other in the Class
- Stanley Cohen, States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering (2001):
- Our earliest ‘political’ memories?
- ‘what do we do with our knowledge about the suffering of others, and what does this knowledge do to us?’
Ethical Theories
Normative Theory
• Why is theory important?
• What is normative theory?
• A brief history of international ethics • Morality and ethics
• Different ethical traditions
• Big ethical questions
Why is THEORY important?
‘Theories do not simply explain or predict, they tell us what possibilities exist for human action and intervention; they define not merely our explanatory possibilities, but also our ethical and practical horizons.’
Steve Smith, ‘Positivism and beyond’, in Smith et al (eds) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, 1996, p13 (UQ Library Permalink)
What is Normative Theory?
‘normative IR theory is concerned specifically with moral norms (or those that carry a sense of obligation rather than merely mapping patterns of behaviour)’
Erskine, ‘Normative IR Theory’, in Dunne et al (eds) International Relations Theories, 2010, p39
‘theory that… evaluates the rightness or wrongness of actions, policies, institutions, or practices’
Duncan Bell, ‘Introduction’, in Bell (ed) Ethics and World Politics, 2010, p5
It is ‘a representation of the way the world ought to be’
Scott Burchill, ‘Introduction’, in Burchill et al (eds) Theories of International Relations, 2nd ed, 2001, p8
Morality and ethics
The moral question is ‘what must I do?’
Ethics answers the question ‘how should I live?’
‘Ethics… is about feeling that our individual lives extend to the lives of others…’
An ethical attitude is ‘one that presupposes the existence of others’ rights. This recognition engenders a duty — the duty to respect others’ rights.’
Coicaud and Warner, ‘Introduction to the first edition’, in Coicaud and Warner (eds) Ethics and International Affairs, 2nd ed, 2013, p7
Different ethical traditions
Communitarianism — state borders are morally defining
Cosmopolitanism — we all have duties to each other as human beings
Categorical ethics — principles trump consequences Utilitarianism — the greatest happiness of the greatest number
Alternative theories: feminism, postmodernism, postcolonialism
Some big questions:
• To whom do we owe ethical obligations?
• On what theories/perspectives do we draw to answer this question?
One perspective on Ethics and Human Rights / IR currently:
The Dominance of Realism
‘The interests of the national society for which government has to concern itself are basically those of its military security, the integrity of its political life, and the well-being of its people. These needs have no moral quality. They are the unavoidable necessities of a national existence and therefore not subject to classification as either “good” or “bad”’
George Kennan ‘Morality and Foreign Policy,’ Foreign Affairs 64(2)1985, p206.
Realism — a Recap
• State centric
• Anarchy
• Politics about the pursuit of power
• Self-help by states
• Sceptical of international law
• Prioritises national interest
• War an intrinsic element of politics
• Seeks to describe/explain the world of international politics as it is
Classical Realism versus Neo-Realism
Classical Realism
• Politics is an expression of human drives, egoistic passions…
• E. H. Carr, Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939)
o Believed it was dangerous to base the study of international politics on an imaginary desire of how we would like the world to be
• Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (1948)
‘universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation…’ (1948, 1954: 12)
o But, understood that adherence to ethical norms as much in interests of those who wielded power as for those over whom it was exercised
See: Lebow in Dunne et al eds, International Relations Theories, 2010
Neo-Realism (or Structural realism)
• Human nature has little to do with why states want power
• The structure of the international system forces states to pursue power
• Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (1979)
o The absence of a higher authority, coupled with interest in survival, leaves states little choice but to compete with each other for power
This Course
Course Curriculum
- Theory and practice
- Intensive format/deadlines
- Useful books:
o Coicaud and Warner, Ethics and International Affairs: Extent and Limits
o Bell, Ethics and World Politics
o Dunne et al, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity - Assessments (in detail tomorrow)
- Communication: Blackboard Discussion Board or c.banham@uq.edu.au
- Consultation hours: Mondays after teaching weekends, 10–11am, Rm 540
Questions/Reflections on Seminar #1:
- One THING you learnt this morning?
- One BIG question you still have?
Seminar #2 : Prevailing Theories of Ethics:
Part #1 — Theories and Traditions of Thought:
Ethics — normative theory
- When we judge we draw on concepts
- Theory. Theorem. To see.
- Different pair of glasses to see the world
- No one theory right
- No prescription
- Sell doubt, not certainty
- Need to push yourself outside comfort zone
Realism — Prevailing View
- Ethics as a struggle to find solutions in a ‘realist’ world?
- Common sense as power
- Inside/outside view of the world
◦ Domestic realm: order/rules/peace
◦ International realm: anarchy/chaos/struggle - Key is national interest
- This can entail supporting or opposing war
(Morgenthau: Vietnam; Mearsheimer: Iraq) - This can entail supporting or opposing human rights
Communitarianism versus Cosmopolitanism
- Moral significance of boundaries
- Community versus global orientation
- State ethics vs. global ethics
- Major theoretical and practical implications
- Briefly outline each
Communitarianism
- Similarities with realism, but different focus
- Importance of community and identity
- Value system comes from community
- Right location to articulate principles/rights/duties - Responsibility and Participation
- Commitment to public life and public good
- Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you, as what you can do for your country” - Freedom can best be realised within a community
- Must be able to implement rights
- Cannot give rights and freedom to others - State and nationalism
- 19th century movement that challenged cosmopolitanism
- Everywhere: refugee policy as example
Cosmopolitanism
- Refuses to acknowledge existing political structures as the source for moral values
- States often the problem: abuse their citizens
- Assumes all people are global citizens, with values and norms that bind them
- Reaches across national boundaries
- We have a responsibility to protect people in need, no matter where they are.
- Key: universalistic and individualistic
Immanuel Kant, 1724–1804
- Enlightenment
- Overcome tradition and superstition
- Reason and science
- Assert freedom and individual rights
- Konigsberg
- Idealistic?
- But still very influential
Categorical Imperative
- “Act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”.
- John Rawls: Veil of ignorance / original position
- Dr Banham’s upcoming simulation
- Treat the world as one community
- We are all citizens of this globe and as such we have certain basic rights
- Opposition to communitarianism and cultural Relativism
Cosmopolitanism : Idealistic but influential
- Numerous practical applications — all based on a notion of cosmopolitan citizenship and responsibility
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- International law
- Humanitarian Intervention
- Responsibility to Protect
Questions:
- What is the exact moral significance of boundaries?
- which one ARE YOU?? - Which is the most compelling framework: realism, communitianism, cosmopolitanism?
- How would the deal with a concrete political challenge: refugees?
Part #2 —Categorical and Utilitarian Ethics
Outline
- Overview
- Kant’s categorical imperative
- Utilitarian thought — Bentham and others
- Some examples:
- Just war theory and torture - Case study: Save the Children
Overview
- Deontological (duty-based) theories: we are required to do what is right, independent of effects, for good or bad, produced by our actions
- Teleological (ends-based) theories: we are morally required, within the limits of our skills and resources, to increase human happiness or reduce human suffering
Donnelly, ‘Ethics and international human rights’, in Coicaud and Warner eds, Ethics and International Affairs, 2013, p139.
See also: Nardin and Mapel (eds), Traditions of International Ethics, 1992, chs 7 and 8.
Kanthan Ethics
- Immanuel Kant (1724–1804):
- Kanthian ethics are agent centred, places emphasis on moral motives, allows principles to trump concerns about consequences
- Reason, not interests, determine right ac4on; such behaviour is motivated by ‘duty’ - The ‘categorical imperative’, moral law we have within us, imposes an absolute injunction to act in a particular way, also a criterion of moral vaidity:
- Maxim-Universalizablity: one ought only to act in a way that the principle of one’s act could become a universal law of human ac4on
- Human beings should be treated as having values in themselves, never treat human beings as mere ends to another’s means
Utilitarian Ethics
- Utilitarianism focuses on public interest
- Utilitarians are consequentialists: the only factor determining whether an action is right or wrong is its consequences
- The only thing that is intrinsically good is well-being, i.e. utility or happiness
- An agent is morally obliged to perform any action no matter what if it has best consequences or maximises the public good
Brief history of Utilitarian thought
- David Hume (1716–1776):
o moral judgements do not result from exercise of reason but are the expression of feeling
o feeling of moral approval aroused by disposition in people to promote the public good - Jeremy Bentham (1716–1776):
- His thoughts:
o utility, the ‘greatest happiness principle’, the only acceptable ultimate standard for the evaluation of both the individual’s conduct and legislation for a community
o principle of utility ‘approves’ of ac4ons according to their tendency to augment happiness
o human beings constituted so their own happiness is the only thing they desire/ act to secure for its own sake
o only moral duty: to promote general happiness
Just-War Tradition
- Just-war thinking: there are circumstances in which war might be morally justifiable indeed morally required
- Jus ad bellum (when is war permissible)
- Utilitarian position not in conflict with just war thinking: both agree government has a duty to protect its citizens - Jus in bello (what is permissible in war)
- Utilitarian position not compatible with just-war thinking, which takes on deontological element
- E.g. Just-war position: torture of prisoners is always wrong; killing civilians is permissible only if unintended (even if foreseeable)
- Utilitarian position: all that matters is welfare be maximised
Ticking Time Bomb Ethical Scenairo
- What is the ticking time bomb scenario?
- Sage Knowledge video: http://sk.sagepub.com/video/torture-and-the-ticking-time-bomb
- ABC Catalyst (Thursday, 8 November 2012): http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3628745.htm
- Deontologist: certain acts are forbidden regardless of the consequences, individuals possess certain human rights which entitle them to be treated in particular ways regardless of the consequences, an individual has a right not to be tortured even if torture was the only way to locate a hidden bomb.
- Bentham: torture justifiable if by torturing one guilty person many who are innocent can be spared injury :
‘Knowing that government throughout is but a choice of evils, I am on every occasion ready to embrace the least of any two, whatever may be its name’
- Alan Dershowitz (2002): torture going to be used anyway, proposed torture warrants, normatively better to have it regulated by a judge (less hypocritical, more accountability)
Case Study: Save the Children
- Introduction by Dr Bantham
- Case Study: Save the Children — Audio:
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — Article 3(1):
‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.’
- The UN Convention
- Break into your Peer Groups:
- Save the Children is governed by the Convention’s ‘best interests of the child’ imperative. It regarded Australia’s policies to breach the Convention. It decided to accept the government contract to work on Nauru anyway.
- What ethical reasoning did the NGO use to justify its decision?
- What do you think of this reasoning?
- Can categorical and utilitarian ethics be compatible?
Links:
