How should we understand the role of ethics in World Politics?
My understanding to the question is that, ethics in world politics is a controversial topic, in
reality, it is more complicated than what ethical scholars have put in academia.
International ethics is based on the notions of morality and politics are essentially distinct,
and ethical theories are concerned how the politics can be made to fit to the requirements
of the morality (Hutchings, 1999: 30). In order to build the connection, there are a series of
theories on ethics in politics have been invented to help to interpret the rules of ethics in
world politics. Take the comparison between communitarianism and cosmopolitanism for
example, Two theories have very different views to the states sovereignty and rights of
individuals, which affected many states’ political views toward today’s world politics.
Cosmopolitans believe the universal values apply to all the human beings, their
‘overlapping consensus’ makes them to believe there is no ethical boarder across the
nations boundaries, while communitarians do not agree. Both ethical theories are
persuasive, no theory here makes no sense, but as value pluralism, makes people to view
and evaluate the world differently, so they will follow different ideologies as they believed
in.
There are many areas in the study of ethics and politics, such as human rights, international
intervention, torture, ethical war and so on. In order to interpret the question, this essay
will narrow its scope down to the international intervention debate between
communitarianism and cosmopolitanism and this essay will particularly argue for the
ethical rules of communitarians in today’s world politics, and explain how different
theories formed different perceptions of the ethics in world politics. In this essay, a
discussion between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism will be introduced first, then
it will focus on communitarianism of its own, lastly an empirical example of Syrian civil
war will be discussed in order to interpret how two theories shape different understandings
of ethics to world politics.
Cosmopolitanism
The theory of cosmopolitanism as a normative theory involves three main claims, which
are, first, “all human beings share a common moral identity”; second, “there are universal
(cosmopolitan) standards of normative judgment”; third, “there should be a cosmopolitan
political order” (Pogge, 1994: 90 in Hutchings, 1999: 36). Cosmopolitans share similar
ideologies with liberals, both them believe the supremacy and the importance of statues of
individual rights, while cosmopolitans are more focusing on there is common value shared
by all human beings and it is universally applied (Pichler, 2011).
At the stake of the debate between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism are surrounded
by three core issues, first, “a conception of the person and what constitutes the good lift for
the individual”; second, “the question of the moral standing of states, whether states
promote or impede the living of a good life by individuals”; third, “universalism versus
particularism, whether there exists an external standpoint by which moral judgments can
be made across cultures” (Cochran, 1995: 46 – 47).
Cosmopolitans Beitz and Pogge believe that, individuals have moral personality, they are
“free and equal moral persons capable of a sense of justice, and of forming and revising a
conception of the good” (Beitz, 1979 and 1983 and Pogge, 1989 in Cochran, 1995: 47).
This is contrast to the ideas of communitarians, as whey believe “such an understanding of
the person in untenable as the individual is socially embedded … The moral ends of
cosmopolitan individuals are empty, as they have no grounding in the shared
understandings of communities” (Cochran, 1995: 47). Which means that in theory of
communitarianism, individuals possess nothing after they leave their communities, as they
are socially bounded to it, everything they may possess is from their communities. For
cosmopolitans however, community is not a necessary social structure for individuals, as
individuals they themselves are capable to possess moral values and moral judgment.
Regarding moral standing of states. To cosmopolitan, states have no normative relevance
to morality, according to Beitz, “the existence of states is a fact of world politics, but … the
autonomy of states cannot be maintained in the face of complex interdependence.
Autonomy is something we confer upon states, a mistake which results from reading
‘states’ for ‘persons’ (Beitz, 1979: 76 in Cochran, 1995: 47). Cosmopolitan scholars
believe the main source of value rests not upon institutions but humanity itself (Cochran,
1995: 47). Communitarians on the other hand, do regard states are relevant to morality.
According to Thompson, a case can prove for this is when a state “ ‘protects, enhances or
makes possible the national life that people value” (Thompson, 1992: 177 in Cochran,
1995: 47). “[T]he state is an ethical forum where duties are made possible, where the
socially constituted individual can realize himself or herself fully (Cochran, 1995: 47).
Frost strengthened this point of view, claimed that “‘citizenship of a good state is not an
option for a free person, but it is rather a precondition for the existence of a free person’”
(Frost, 1986: 174 – 175 in Cochran, 1995: 47).
Universalism as believed by cosmopolitans has ‘overlapped consensus’ across nations
borders. They believe their standards of judgment is universally appliable because of the
universal human commonality (Hutchings, 1999: 37). Every individual has the capacity to
recognize and follow a conception of the good, however, there would be no rational means
for individuals to arbitrate these goods when there are public and political conflicts in their
states (Cochran, 1995: 47). Therefore, for the conception of good, individuals must be
