Seeking Balance within Particularism

In this week’s readings and lectures, I found particularism or the idea that morality is derived from social interactions and groups very interesting and applicable to our society today.  Opponents of particularism argue that morality is derived from the individual, and philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke go as far as stating the moral beings are created before entering society. Hobbes and Locke’s philosophy is flawed in my opinion because moral codes vary by culture and nations, and one cannot establish their own moral codes without being influenced or taught right from wrong without social interactions. Therefore, without a community’s standards and values, one cannot have morality or know what is and isn’t moral.

For instance, when one goes to their place of worship or school, different moral codes are introduced and taught and it is up to the individual to accept and conform to these morals. With exposure to different groups with different moral codes, one will be influenced by the codes and form their own moral and ethic codes founded on those they have been exposed to. Since most groups within a society or nation have similar moral codes, Walzer’s argument that the deprivation of a community that shares the same moral values would lead to moral collapse seems true, since morality of an individual is rooted in community groups and values.

While, I believe that particularism is reflected in many nations’ moral obligations and international politics, including our own nation, because self-preservation will always take precedence to any moral obligation in the international, I do feel some concern for the main criticism of particularism. Since particularism puts one’s country at the highest priority, it allows for people to turn a blind eye towards the suffering of others. In the United States, the media and the Internet bring attention to the suffering and unethical issues in foreign countries. However, most people are more concerned with solving the issues plaguing their own nation, and while they are sympathetic for these people, they believe it is up to the government of those suffering to seek solutions on their own. This idea of every man for himself, could also lead to destruction. The solution to the problem of lethargy can be resolved as Miller proposed, while still rooted within the ideas of particularism. This being that people should still recognize loyalties and obligations to their fellow citizens, while acting so without violating the basic rights of foreigners. This solution however is difficult to achieve due to the spread of particularism in recent years. Exposing the next generation to other cultures and the significance of civil rights will be crucial to maintaining a proper balance of morality within the idea of particularism. 

Borders and Expanding Patriotism

 What Have Borders Done for Us Lately? 

And Can Patriotism be Expanded?

The liberal approach focuses on the moral consideration of individuals.  However, because of the fundamental concepts of community and morality, the liberal approach can only be used within the confines of the state.  It is argued, should we expand the liberal approach to the rest of the world, we would be jeopardizing the safety of our nation, without which we would not live. A simple way of thinking about this is to take for example, the United States decides to help a group of individuals outside of its national border.  In order to do so, the United States has to take money away from the Department of Defense or Public Services.  So by helping individuals outside of the nation the U.S. has neglected or weakened a duty to their own citizens, and in one way or another has negatively impacted the safety or well being of the nation. 

            I find this whole concept to be one created with its end purpose in mind: to undercut the liberal approach to international relations.  After all, community is not the starting point of the human species.  If you start with community, there is no contest to why we should take care of our own before we reach out to others.  What happens if you start at the beginning though, at individual humans who actively or passively interact with one another.  The issue then becomes the fact that we have borders around our nations.  These borders have allowed us to evolve differently, create different cultures, and develop pride for our own nations.  In effect they have lead us to wars over territory and ideals.  They have allowed certain acts of cruelty to go unpunished due to sovereignty.  Not to mention they’ve made traveling much more difficult as well.  No one on earth likes going through Customs when entering a foreign nation or coming back home. 

What are borders beneficial? They allow us to break up the world into smaller parts so that it can in a way be more manageable. However, it seems to me that they have made the world less manageable as a whole.

            We have national borders and there is no foreseeable future without them.  So how can we use the liberal approach in IR, knowing we have national borders, if it is limited to the moral consideration of individuals within a single community?  Nussbaum would suggest doing away with notions such as patriotism.  I do not see how this is remotely possible due to our natural intuition of speciesism (*speciesism is a hierarchical approach that puts one’s own kind above all others).  What if we expanded the idea of patriotism? What if we have a sense of duty and pride not just for our nation, but also for our world? The truth of the matter is that everyone’s primary concern is the preservation of their own kind.  At the same time, everyone’s chief concern is that another group of human beings will be the cause of their own kind’s destruction.  The solution doesn’t appear to be one that is difficult to arrive at. I think it is apparent that no other species has the capability to end the human race, other than itself.  If we consider our own kind to be all human beings who live on this earth, then we would quintessentially eliminate our main fear.

            The main issue with this approach is the ability to create a sweeping change in thought throughout our entire species.  And to this problem I offer education as a solution.  Education has the ability to change the world in this way, but this by no means guarantees that it will change in this way.

Striving Towards a Cosmopolitan Mindset

            Nussbaum’s piece “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism” put me in between two different parts of my own personality. I found myself in accordance with what she had to say about our need to pursue a cosmopolitan education and enlighten students that our high standard of living very likely cannot be universalized. On the other hand her denouncement of American patriotic pride was certainly hard to swallow. Our sense of pride, however skewed it can be at times, is what makes us who we are. The subscription to the idea of being from the United States drives work ethic and a certain standard of living.

            I believe there is a middle ground between a myopic isolationist mindset and a complete absolution of ethical and national ties. This might lean more towards ethical particularism, where “because he is my brother” can be used as reason for helping one another, but would not be mandatory. In “The Ethics of Nationality” David Miller touches on a compromise that makes sense to me: we can have special loyalties and recognize specific obligations to our fellow countrymen provided that this does not violate the basic human rights of those outside of our group.

            In more concrete terms, I find it prudent to educate grade school students on other cultures, languages, and economic conditions. Europe has the benefit of having so many countries in a small area; we need to strive toward a global mindset like that where we can acknowledge that we are one country out of many. Living in the United States can be desensitizing to human rights violations around the world-we are bombarded with images every day, but rarely are we able to empathize. I understand that American History is important, but more emphasis needs to be put on world cultures. And this “English or bust” attitude needs to change-we are surrounded by other languages and have very little instruction in this respect.

Partiality to one’s nation or Fairness to the World

The author believes that partiality to one’s fellow members occurs in the national community, which therefore leads to an individual preferring only his nation’s goods above others. The metaethical particularist believe that duties to fellow nationals differ in kind because the nationalist community is the source of the language and values employed in the practice of moral judgment; partiality to the interests of one’s fellow nationals is therefore a consequence of the nature of morality. While the cultural perfectionists believe that priority for one’s fellow nationals is a consequence of the importance of community membership for the human good.

Michael Walzer criticizes and states patriotism as a form of liberalism. His belief that the deprivation of a community that shares the same moral values as one would lead to total moral collapse and therefore restriction is important. His view of a patriot choosing to work within the nation, protecting its interests and continued existence as an historical fact even if greater good and impartiality understood might be produced by abandoning the nation. His idea can be found in my example which proves his theory unfeasible.

 The relationship of the United States and Israel is that of two countries that share a similar heritage. Both were persecuted because of their religious choices. They both left their previous homeland to settle in another land. This sentiment shared often leads to the U.S. staunch backing of Israel foreign policy; the electorates when voting choose causes dear to their heart and completely ignore the fact that the policy may not benefit their own country at the end. United States has an unwavering support for Israel. It is this unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits. I would suggest impartiality just like the author as it promotes unity.

The cultural perfectionism theory advocate, Yael Tamir argues on the importance of nationality for personal identity. She states than an individual’s self image is highly affected by the status of their national community. She prefers that we observe the importance of special obligations to fellow nationals. However Michael Ignatieff argues that the theory disregards real human experience. I agree with him on the example of the Ethiopian famine in the 1983-84, where people were on the brink of death from starvation; communities were disregarded as they pleaded for international help.

Tamir further argues for the establishment of multinational states and that the majority should have control of a set of political institution. Minorities are to be deprived of benefits enjoyed by the majority. Although this theory is impossible to implement due to the nature of most states which have set rules by the government to cater to all of its citizens the same way. It still makes you wonder about the situation unraveling in the United States. There is a political divide in the country and it is only getting stronger. Even though income and employment play a major role in deciding where one resides. Libertarians and democrats are choosing to leave with people who share the same moral values as they. An individual working in Washington DC may choose to reside in the suburbs; he might choose Maryland if he was a democrat or Virginia if socially conservative. But choosing a place where one fits in is also a major consideration.

Nussbaum Article strongly criticizes patriotism. She deems it a cultural jingo which often breeds false perception of superiority. As Americans, we have the right to freedom, but those in developed countries and some violate human rights. She urges us to promote a global form of learning and citizenship which I agree with. We live in a globally integrated world and problems affecting one nation will later end up on our doorstep. If someone has a shared history with the state, that shouldn’t mean we should relegate the other minority to the wayside as this will breed contempt in the neglected.

I posted ths in the comment sectin of Roy's post but I wanted everyone to see it.  I think it is a good question that I did not cover in lecture but is pretty interesting in light of the posts on this blog.


I think that a question that I could pose to you and the rest of this blog is this:

Does the loss of morality that Morgenthau claims happened inthe 20th century mean that the international is not a moral realm or does it mean that people are no longer acting morally. There is a key difference there.

Response to Connor’s Post

Upon reading your post I found one part in particular that you mentioned that was very interesting. When you stated that the differences in cultural interpretations could not be resolved in agreeable terms. This is an excellent point that I did not think about while doing the readings assigned for the lecture. The dedication that the elected officials have to their countries could be conceived as a result of the fact that the people that are in international positions are elected by the inhabitants of the country. The elected officials of today have much more in common with their people than the others that are in similar elected positions on the international scene. As long as the international representatives for the countries are elected by the people, the cultural interpretations will continue to be difficult to resolve in agreeable terms

The Unethical International

It has been recorded since the high renaissance period about the battle leaders faced in other to secure their state. Thus, the leaders are thought to have a different moral ethics. Machiavelli defended the moral attitude of these men as he believed having a normal attitude does not benefit a leader when dealing with his state’s national interest. He believes has to be morally ambiguous. However Beitz states that a leader’s moral responsibility is put to question on the basis of whether or not his moral judgment should be different from his people.

            According to Morgenthau, the moral conduct of the 19^th century stated that during the war, noncombatants civilians must be avoided and even if attacks were to happen due to the proximity, then sanctions are to be dealt out. This code is no longer in effect, as wars in modern times, often injure and kill many civilians. There are complexities to the war and moral standards. The destruction of an opponent’s means of production can be seen as unethical while being advantageous. An example is the criticism, Roosevelt faced in World War II when he and his policy advisers decided to destroy Hiroshima while he condemned the Russian embargo and Japan for the canton bombing incident.

            Most states like the United States and other strong states like Russian, Germany and France may prefer and use the state of nature theory; it leaves the weaker states worse off and without much bargaining power. I don’t agree with Beitz on the issue of states on the promotion of national interest which could produce morally right action in international relations.  From the wars and those of the past, none of the international ethics has been morally justified for the people. The Vietnam War ended with too many casualties and so have the other wars.