Disembodied... Never Disengaged!
Philosophy, Politics and Society, all in one place.
-
International Monkey Business: Animal Rights and International Ethics
Posted on October 13th, 2009 No commentsBefore the failed attempt at a League of Nations and the creation of the United Nations, philosopher John Stuart Mill recognized that international relations was not just an empirical study, but a normative one. He tells us that a fundamental goal of philosophers should be to formulate “some rule or criterion whereby the justifiableness of intervening in the affairs of other countries, and (what is sometimes fully as questionable) the justifiableness of refraining from intervention, may be brought to a definite and rational test.”[1] This call clearly does not limit itself to a discussion of interference based on human interests, and as such is a legitimate endeavor in regard to all individuals within the moral arena, including animals. Here I will outline a few of the initial difficulties that arise in producing an international ethic that accounts for animals in order to contextualize the basic framework that will follow. This sketch, then, will work as the first step towards an international ethic incorporating not only human beings but non-human animals.
-
Locke & The Legitimacy of Law
Posted on February 17th, 2009 No commentsIn a critique of United States involvement in Iraqi and Afghani elections, anti-war activist and member of the board of directors for Peace Action Rahul Mahajan exclaimed “[w]e Americans tend to use words like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ in a purely talismanic manner, without attaching any actual meaning to them (2)”. With the US military first invading Afghanistan, and then Iraq, in the name – at least partially – of democracy, it may be hard to swallow the thought of Americans just throwing a prized word like ‘freedom’ or ‘democracy’ around with no real meaning behind it, unfortunately Mahajan is correct in his observation, and it is this correctness that leads to the real question of does America really exhume democracy abroad? Or does the nation simply exude a grand hypocrisy on an even grander scale? With a nation founded on revolution and the philosophies of John Locke, is it possible that America has now moved away from this original platform of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to “life as we want you to live it, liberty only as we provide it, and happiness as long as we agree with it”? If this is true, then, it is important to explore what John Locke would have to say on the issues of law, both for US Citizens and whatever other citizens the US forces its laws upon. In the exploration of his beliefs, along with that of Thomas Hobbes, it can be said that while Hobbes inevitably must settle on a government ruled by laws which are checked by the people, it is John Locke in the Second Treatise of Government who provides the logical and justifiable reasons for the formation of a government by the people, for the people, where the law’s legitimacy rests in the hands of the majority, not the leader of government. In defense of this statement it is necessary to explore, quickly, how Thomas Hobbes establishes, however grudgingly, a rule of law based on the majority. Then, it is important to understand how Locke postulates the same basic idea, but does so much more agreeably. Finally, with this knowledge in hand, it will be necessary to apply it to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan of present day.
-
Egalitarianism in the Western World: Thomas Jefferson’s Nature of Man
Posted on February 17th, 2009 No commentsThomas Jefferson, in analyzing different forms of society, proclaimed, “whether no law… or too much law… submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last” (Matthews 63). It would seem, despite his grouping with people like Madison and Hamilton as a founding father, Jefferson stands in opposition to the market society advocated by others, instead contending that an egalitarian, limited government society – if any government – is the best option. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson stands as one of the few Western philosophers to truly preach that all mankind is created equal and with an innate ability to govern themselves. It is this view on the nature of man that formulates Jefferson’s basic political theory and allows him to stand on the side of anarchism and in opposition to the tyranny of capitalism and big government.
-
Hobbes’s Hidden Democracy
Posted on February 17th, 2009 1 commentIn a specific criticism of what he called the “liberal’s failure”, founder and chairman of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism Nicholas Provenzo exclaimed “[t]he pattern endures, the repeated error of treating dictators as ‘rational actors’ and predicting their actions based on that assumption that dictators will choose a course of action that benefits their countries and their citizens (1)”. Clearly a logical claim in this day and age, when the word “dictator” brings to mind the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein, this belief in the irrationality of dictators wasn’t always so. Namely, seventeenth century political theorist Thomas Hobbes stood up in firm support of a dictatorship, whom he referred to as an absolute sovereign, and even placed his arguments into one of the most remembered political writings of all time, The Leviathan. In this work Hobbes attempts to set up a relationship of absolute authority between the governed and the government, but inevitably fails to establish an absolute ruler or a submissive people. Ultimately, the rational person who is Hobbes’s sovereign can never be proven rational, and Provenzo’s criticism remains strong even in Hobbes’s theoretical world.In order to see where Hobbes fails to truly provide for a workable common-wealth, it is important to begin with his theoretical state of nature, which is where Hobbes begins his exploration of human behavior and the psychology of man which leads to the establishment of his common-wealth. Most fundamentally, Hobbes equates the state of nature with a state of war. Believing that all people are only out for their own survival, Hobbes concludes that this must mean a world without the sovereign is a world where everyone fights everyone else. Specifically, “the state of nature is a state of war of all against all, punctuated by frequent violence, in which the participants correctly perceive themselves to be in constant danger. (2)” This gloomy outlook on the nature of mankind is one of the most basic premises of the call for a common-wealth and an absolute sovereign.
-
The Necessity of and Alternatives to the State
Posted on February 17th, 2009 No commentsThe great anarchist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon announced, “The government of man by man is servitude.”(Guérin 15) Since the times of the Ancient Greeks humans, as a whole, have consistently insisted on being ruled by a government. This insistence has led many theorists to prepare rationalizations for the state in hopes of justifying the oppression a government brings with it. However, these journeys of logical leaps and bounds have invariably been unable to fully and consistently justify any realistic form of government. In the end, it must still be asked if government is necessary, and if not what is a viable alternative. To attempt to solve this century old problem, it is necessary to first explore some political theorists who have attempted to justify government, then examine the general justifications for government and how both government and social anarchy fit within these justifications, and finally, with all exploration complete, conclude whether or not government finds itself legitimate in today’s day and age.
-
Liberty versus Democracy: A Review of The Future of Freedom
Posted on February 17th, 2009 No commentsPerhaps in the age of globalization where the domestic agriculture policies of the United States can totally alter the stock market of Thailand the answer to the question of how should governments respond to the eroding sovereignty isn’t to give more power back to the people but give more power to the elites. This is, at least in part, the argument of Fareed Zakaria in his addition to the globalization literature happily titled The Future of Freedom. In his examination of political systems throughout the world and in the United States he argues for a few main issues, some widely agreed upon and others quite controversial.
-
Escaping International Anarchy: Reconceptualizing the Ethics of World Politics
Posted on February 17th, 2009 No commentsThe creation of Presidential Decision Directive 25 by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and the continuance of the directive under George W. Bush has brought to bear a real conundrum for those interested in international relations, and particularly the ethics of international relations. This Directive, which aimed to reform US involvement in international peacekeeping by making involvement dependent upon there being “vital interests” at stake effectively allows the US to avoid intervening in humanitarian crises abroad. While it may not be the only initiative that takes a step away from an international ethic it may well be the pinnacle of the problem. (Burkhalter) It is because the world at large has almost completely forgotten its promise to not let grave atrocities like the Holocaust happen again that a formulation of international ethics is now so important. Absent a workable morality nation-states will continue to work under the guise solely of ‘national interest’ and be justified in doing so. Therefore, the aim here is to first examine the current state of international affairs from an ethical viewpoint, then establish a normative theory with the aim of providing a workable solution to the problems associated with the current system. Finally, it will be important to defend this new normative theory against alternative theories and against general opposition to ensure that it won’t fall victim to the international community’s egoism like previous theories seemingly have.