I believe that the international realm in its current state
is void of morality, even despite the fact that there are numerous
international institutions set up with their main goal being moral
consideration throughout the international community. Some of these institutions even hand out punishments for not
cooperating, or going against a “code of conduct”, such as the United
Nations. However, these
institutions are not “effective” in the way that Beitz uses the term
“effective”. So the question
arises, can there be a system that is “effective” in creating a moral code in
the international community? The
answer to this I am not sure of, however I do believe that there is a way to
establish a moral code using what we know about human nature and how we as
social creatures develop our interests. So what is the first step to creating this moral code?
Globalization
is a process in which national economies, societies and cultures become more
integrated. One of the issues with
cooperation at the international level is that different states have different
interests. These differing
interests often result in an absence of cooperation. However, there are also particular factors that often lead
to cooperation. These factors
include: an expectation of repeated interaction, economic interdependency, and
transparent information sharing.
If you expect to have multiple future interactions with another actor,
it seems to be in your best interest to cooperate so that the actor will
continue to cooperate with you. If
two countries are economically interdependent they will be less willing to
defect towards one another for fear of affecting their economy. If information is shared easily and
accurately between two states, preemptive or unnecessary war can be avoided. Globalization positively affects these
three factors which help lead to cooperation at the international level by
solving the main issue: different states have different interests. Through globalization, the people of
each state begin to want the same thing.
I believe this to be the most important step in creating an effective
means of moral obligation in the international community, which skeptics
believe has not been established.
The
idea of globalization is similar to Morgenthau’s reasoning for why during the
18th and 19th century, international politics was
governed by a moral code; there existed similar norms, values and interests
between the state actors.
I
find the idea of globalization leading to moral code in the international realm
to be similar to the concept used in the popular movie, Inception. When you give someone an idea that they
know didn’t come from their own thoughts or mind but rather from yours, it is
often difficult to get that person to agree or accept that idea. However, if you can plant the idea in
their mind in such a way so that they believe to have come up with the idea
themselves, it becomes very simple to get them to accept or agree on it.
This is how I believe a moral code can
be established in the International Community. In order to begin establishing one we, the human race, need
to have the same interests in mind, whether that be ending poverty, slavery,
famine, etc. Once we have this
building block we can begin to establish a code to be used by future
generations.
Interesting. However, we should be careful not to confuse "states act immorally today" with "there are no morals in the international realm". This would be similar to saying "mob bosses don't act morally" and "There is no potential for people to act morally".
ReplyDeleteRemember, the second part is about potential and nature, not necessarily empirics.
I like your connection to Inception; that idea of planting an idea in someone's mind goes back to Socrates. And I really like this idea of 'having the same interests in mind.' The borders we make are largely mental, and if I understand your notion correctly, there are innate things that make us human-aversion to other's suffering, desire for well being-that can be developed in our global culture.
ReplyDeleteAs you stated in your post, institutions such as the United Nations have attempted to establish a universal moral or ethics code. For instance, they have written The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. These two documents constitute a “universal standard” against which all nations should conduct their government in order to maintain ethics and morality. These codes are meant to break down barriers and give states similar interests, but they ultimately fail because not all states and cultures conform or believe in all of the codes set by the UN. This diversity in culture and priorities are very different to overcome, I agree that for a moral code to be successful “we, the human race, need to have the same interests in mind”, but it seems that in recent times the possibility of internationally uniting under the same goals decreases more and more.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the international realm being void of morality. Although the UN and NATO provide sanctions for countries that cross the line, it is not often enough. Loopholes in the treaties have often allowed United States Presidents to declare war and attack other countries even without the permission of the Congress. The NATO treaty does not grant the President of a state unilateral power to use military force against other nations. However, during the administration of form Presidents Bush and Clinton, they have both side swept Congress sought permission of UN Security Council and declared war in Iraq and attack on Haiti respectively.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you that globalization is advantageous for developed countries. It helps boost national income as well as the GDP. But for developing countries, it is often disadvantageous. It hurts the fragile emerging companies and removes the competition. Developing nations often find it difficult to compete with goods from developed nations as it is often better in quality and cheaper in cost. For the developing world, however, it is beneficial for the economy as the comparative advantage theory is effective. Although globalization in the education sector proves beneficial, it also has its problems. Globalization in the United States has taken effect since the 20th century; it has also brought about loss of jobs in the home country to foreigners abroad who can produce for a much lower cost. Companies are looking to spend fewer resources to gain the maximum output. And this has continued to hurt our economy.