Is the International Ethical?

            Determining whether the international realm is ethical or not comes down to an evaluation of human morality on the individual level. Pogge’s piece on Cosmopolitanism derives a global responsibility of every citizen to one another. He speaks in very absolute terms; the individual is the ultimate level of consideration, rights are applied universally, and humans are not limited to concern for those only in their ethnic or cultural groups. Thomas Hobbes’ way of thinking, on the other hand, almost absolves responsibility for one another and takes the mentality that the world is inherently dangerous and unpredictable, and if we are to have any hope of surviving then we must engage in a civil contract under the state.

            I found this dichotomy interesting. Both ways of thinking seem to have absolutes that dictate how governments should behave. Pogge says there are certain fundamental principles of justice on the institutional level that cannot be ignored when considering human rights. I respect this idea and find sense in its idea of absolute rights, but I have trouble seeing how this could be applied on an institutional or international level. There are veritable differences between cultures and their values. Analyzing morality on an individual level like Pogge does is a Western ideal. I understand that there are simple human rights that should apply to any culture, but I think that having an overarching morality would cause a great deal of strife. There would be subtle differences in culture’s interpretations of economic ground rules that I don’t believe could be resolved in simple, agreeable terms. I am not denying a sense of ethics in the international realm, but I find it difficult to subscribe to universal norms and expect others to do the same.