[Air-l] universal ethics?

[Thomas Koenig]

A few more comments (some repetition from my previous post):
At 15:02 28/03/2005, Paula wrote:
>My reply got horribly long, so I blogged it instead: 
>http://bastubis.blogspot.com/ Monday

Paula:
>The objection is not only that traditional, liberal constructs of 
>universal ethics have represented the interests of those who control 
>capital resources

And so did particularist ethics.

Paula:
>For example, nomads are not gonna get too excited about habeas corpus -- 
>they have no prisons!

Nomads live today in nation states (Maghreb countries and  Mongolia spring 
to my mind, also Gypsies/Travellers in Europe), which maintain prisons: 
They definitely benefit from effective habeas corpus rights, which have 
frequently been denied to them.

Paula:
>Liberals see it a certain way, 
><http://www.islam-online.net/IOL-English/dowalia/debate-15-10/debat2.asp>Moslems 
>might think about separation of the public and private spheres quite 
>differently. Both might value privacy and even the neocons would agree 
>that privacy is a right, but would Moslems or neocons agree that 
>consenting homosexuality in private was OK?

I don't like this juxtapositions between "liberals" (a political 
persuasion) and Muslims (sometimes defined by creed, but often also an 
ethnicity) at all. Bassam Tibi, a political scietist, who contributes 
frequently to debates about Islam in Germany, for instance, considers 
himself both a Muslim and a liberal.

Paula:
>Would contemporary liberals agree that the private sphere is constituted 
>in the inalienable authority of the male head of the family as irreducible 
>primary unit of capitalism (as classical Liberals saw it)?

John Stuart Mill, *the* archetypical classical liberal dedicated an entire 
eassay to the subjugation of women, which he did not approve:

http://www.ecn.bris.ac.uk/het/mill/women.htm

Paula:
>(liberalism being a Anglo-American construct)

Please. Most prominent liberals came from Europe, most importantly from the UK.

Paula:
>Representative democracy is not only conceptually flawed but,

I cannot find anything in your article that is specific for "representative 
democracy."

Paula:
>  historically speaking, is currently engaged not only in the illegal 
> occupation of Iraq but also in torture,

Where is your evidence for this observation?

Paula:
>illegal detention without trial,

Obviously a flaw in the (US/UK) systems, but hardly a result of 
universalist values.

Paula:
>dangerous levels of pollution,

How does this debatable statement relate to universalism and/or 
representative democracy?

Paula:
>One would hope that new forms of more direct and participatory democracy 
>will emerge and reform of global institutions may open out negotiation of 
>fairer trade and more equitable development.

Why do you think that direct democracy would be more equitable than 
representative democracy? Switzerland offers more participatory elements in 
its polity than most other countries. Does that maen it is a fairer country 
than, say, Sweden?

My favorite article for republicans, who cherish "participatory democracy" 
so much:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/civsoc.htm


Thomas


-- 
thomas koenig, ph.d.
department of social sciences, loughborough university
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/staff/thomas/index.html