Mill, Evolution, and Humanitarian Intervention
Evolutionary Biologist Stephen A Gould, in his essay, “What is a Species?” describes how
large-scale evolution is not the result of one species turning into another by
total transformation over the entire geography, but rather when members of the
same species are separated geographically they branch off from the parental
population. Simply put, if you
were to take two of the same animals and separate them geographically, after a
million years the two may not behave in the same way or even look remotely related.
Humans are separated geographically, however, the same process may take even
longer due to the fact that humans are able to communicate and share ideas with
each other from across the world.
Nevertheless, humans live in differing environments and these
environments have allowed a diverse set of cultures, ideas, and over all ways
of life to form.
This
idea echoed by Gould called branching is found in the basis of Humanitarian
Intervention. Thinkers such as
John Stuart Mill and Michael Walzer believe there is merit in protecting the
natural occurrence of branching.
They do not specifically acknowledge this idea, however it is present in
their works. In Mill’s, “A Few
Words on Non-Intervention”, he talks about how maximum equal liberty and how
everyone has the right to develop his or herself as they best see fit. To fully understand why Mill supports
this you would have to read Mill’s “On Liberty”. Mill is a strong supporter of diversity, eccentrics, and
people following the path that they see for themselves, not what others see for
them. As a result, he believes that no one has the right to stop anyone from
being, believing, or thinking what he or she wants. Much like the idea of branching, Mill believes that
people cannot and should not ever be the same; have the same ideas; dress the
same; talk the same; or have the same beliefs.
In
applying these base beliefs of Mill, it is no wonder why he would find a
default position to be non-intervention.
I believe he would accept that foreign nations should voice their
opinions on matters, even when it may be of no concern to them, however, he
would not accept (in most cases) that they should directly intervene and
attempt to change a foreign state’s way of life. It is not that he believes states to be only
self-interested, but rather the idea of “who are you to tell me how to live my
life”. There may at one point been a time when everyone wanted generally the
same thing. The truth of the
matter is that our species has been separated geographically and as a result
our wants, beliefs, and ideas are not one in the same. What one person wants, may not be what another
person half way around the world wants.
So we should ask in order to receive their consent…If only asking them
was that easy!
I recently have come into agreement with the non-intervention view point when it comes to a foreign country's politics, and would agree that foreign nations should voice their concerns. The concern that i have is with as you stated "who are you to tell me how to live my life", and undoubtedly many countries feel exactly as you have stated. Please correct me if i am wrong but i believe a government's version of that may be "who are you to tell me how to run my country", so what do we do if that government or ruler begins to commit atrocities such as genocide? Do we break to rule of non-intervention and attempt to reform the government or do we continue to uphold it.
ReplyDeleteStephen I like the idea that geographic separations have created differing norms and therefore it would be assuming to impose our ideas on others. So my question is this: are there norms that are so fundamental to mankind that every culture agrees with them?
ReplyDeleteIn response to William, it would appear that Stephen is arguing that there is not.
ReplyDeleteOne 'middle' position is that there are such norm but they are quite vague. A norm for the preservation of life is a vague one and may have different meaning in different contexts. It isn't always, "protect life at all costs". It could mean, "live life to its fullest, and a full life includes sacrifice" or something similar. So vague notions are the same but what they mean in practice will differ from place to place. Does this make sense?
Regarding genocide i would agree with Mill that there are always exceptions for when to intervene. However, I am not aware of, and perhaps someone can inform me, of any actual instance when a foreign nation intervened specifically for the sake of genocide. Most people think of WWII when they hear genocide. And yes the genocide did cease after the war was over, but Hitler was threatening to take over a very large amount of territory. It became necessary to stop Hitler before he became too powerful. To my knowledge forms of genocide have been occurring since WWII and not a lot has been done to stop them.
ReplyDelete