Jeffery Kuo Quiz #1 Notes INTA 2030 Summer 2012 May 27, 2012

Impartiality in Moral argument - There is no such thing as privileged persons; all people are equal - Cannot treat one person differently from another It is okay at sometimes to discriminate and/or partially privilege, but one must do so with good reasoning. Rachels minimum conception of morality - Morality is at least the effort to guide ones conduct by reason while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by ones conduct conscientious moral agent someone who acts with impartial concern for the interests of everyone affected 3 positions regarding international ethics 1.) deontology relies on first principles, base moral code. Some notable people are Immanuel Kant (18th century) and John Rawls (contemporary) 2.) utilitarianism (consequentalism) measure worth of many different ways of acting, action with the best consequences is the one to take 3.) contextualism understand context of situation before making claim, broad context Deontology - tries to give substinant concept of what is good - example: 1st principle that killing is not good - ignores context and focuses primarily on principles Rawls Theory of Justice uses 1st principles for ethical arguments. Certain 1st principles we can hold to create good society where we can flourish - take people how they are (good and bad), can we make better world or societies. Can you have just free order? Answer is yes: because people have rational reflection - comes up with basic rules societies can follow to make a better world - should not be too idealistic, dont look for a perfect society, but rather a BETTER society - Rawls believes himself to be a Kantian - Rawls believes himself to be a Kantian but does not believe in too idealistic People are perfectible in idealism. People are NOT perfectible in realism. Kant is less idealist.

Nozick - did not believe in the perfection of people Rawl take people as they are, but them in a veil of ignorance. Imagine that everyone forgets their religion, salary, occupation, etc. Under this condition, people can have a good society. Veil of ignorance Everyone forgets their background, etc. Take some time and work together to create a good society, then place everyone back to their original background, etc. and society will be better. Nozick wrote Anarchy State of Utopia - why not be more idealist than Rawls - claims that all individuals have rights - rights must be protected (first principles) - everything after that is just extra - government and states sole job is to protect rights of the individual, making it a very small and minimal part of society - Nozick basically says that first establish stuff on the first principle grounds, and then make the rest extra. More idealist than Rawls. Rawls and Nozick were both liberals. Rawls however, can be seen as more democratic and arguing for a larger state. Nozick is more libertarian, wanting a liberal state and minimal state. Consequentialism - goodness of things is based on consequences - utilitarianism like consequentalism, but based on the utility of your actions. How much good will your actions do? - what goals are achieved from your actions? - not interested in procedural principles (what you can and cannot do) - more focused on substantive outcome - focuses pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain - modern economics is utilitarianism - gain theory, cost-benefit analysis theory, are all examples of modern utilitarianism thinking Frederick Hayeq - Kantian + Utilitarianism - certain procedures you can follow with which make a good society (Kantian part) - after that, everything is utilitarianism - capitalism Contextualism - context matters - Machiavelli (15th Century) wrote the Prince, a book about how to gain and maintain power over a society

- Thomas Hobbes (17th Century England) During the glorious revolution era. The Leviathan book. - Machiavelli and Hobbes are realists in political philosophy. - both stress the power in making ethical decisions - Karl Marx is also a contextualist (communist) - rules depend on distribution of power and how its used - power to act as opposed to anchored beliefs and principles - power historically, and as a craft/art - practical activity of politics - dont believe changes occur in abstract principles, actions matter Guess - social orders are fragile - no universal ethics - ethics vary on meanings, what it means to do something Realists are more drawn to power (Machiavelli and Hobbes) Marx also drawn to power, but from materialism Lennin - Started revolution in Russia, overthrew the czar - communist - who does what to whom and for what benefits? - strategic and charismatic powers, coercion, persuasion Nijey (German, 19th Century) - questioned liberalism and idea that ruler = happy - big proponent that people are different from one another - what do individuals value and what choices do they make in their everyday life? - contingency subject to change Vapor (20th century, father of sociology) - what gives politics legitimacy? Within contextualists are realists United Nations is not a world authority - has no military of its own - intergovernmental organization - state of anarchy (international system) no one power over anyone else Realism: power power for realists is expressed through the military and economy 4 general propositions shared by realists 1.) politics is structured by power and coercion, sets up world so we can see who the powers are.

- realists have not defined structure for International System (which is a problem) - some structure in the international system are better than the others (more stable, less chances of war) - war can never be eradicated because there are always threats - Bipolar structure of Cold War is example of a good international structure 2.) Domestically (within states) political institutions can control possibility of conflicts, but internationally political institutions cant. 3.) There is a national interest that is above state government. - Considerations, government must be interested in protecting/promoting national interest - How nation sees itself and how it wants to be seen (examples of national interest) - Maintenance of itself should be the core of any countrys national interest. 4.) Most powerful states set the terms for global interactions - Dominate international institutions Realism came out in the 20th century after the 1st World War, and before the 2nd World War. It tried to make an international organization called the League of Nations, which was a precursor to the United Nations. The concept of a collective security, where if any country of a LoN is attacked, then all the other LoN countries will come to its defense. Normative theory of realism - safety of states, stability of international system - national interest > religion, etc. Dont ever focus on one moral theory too long. Dont impose your morals on anyone else. Realists primary concerns are security seeking and understanding power relations. There is always the possibility of fighting, cant get rid of it. Hans Morgenthau - German Jew living during WW2/Holocaust era - Realists theories came from the Holocaust - Civilization makes some desirable and feasible policies morally reprehensible and normally impossible to execute - Nations sacrifice national interest when its pursuit necessitates the violation of a moral principle (example: War today as a contest). Democracies have nationalistic standards. Aristocracies have universal standards.

Something dangerous in democracy is that states pour contests of national morality into the almost empty bottle of universal ethics. Countries say the way we are, everyone should be. Relativism in relation to moral principles and foreign policy - in time: 100 years ago principles were different that todays - in culture: certain principles are obeyed by some cultures but not in others Dont ever impose your principles on others, even for things like human rights (because it is an abstract concept).