[Air-l] universal ethics?

[Paula]

Replies interleaved:

Thomas Koenig wrote:

> 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.

Dunno what particularist ethics are and not sure what they have to do 
with it?

>
> 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.
>
Of course, if resettled in environments where prisons are maintained. My 
point, obviously, was that in the absence of prisons, habeas corpus 
would be meaningless -- i.e. that constructs of "rights" are 
historically specific.

> 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.

Yep, and there are also gay Moslems, defined by creed and/or culture of 
origin. Sorry, I should have said "Islamist" rather than "Moslem" in 
this context. i.e. people who would see Islam as both a creed and a 
political philosophy -- a duty placed on Moslems by God to ensure that 
the political environment facilitates the practice of Islam.

>
> 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


I'm familiar with Mill and with his feminist critics. However, classical 
liberal constructs of the family can be argued to facilitate sexism even 
if ostensibly opposed to it. E.g. Elshtain 
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/497.html

>
> Paula:
>
>> (liberalism being a Anglo-American construct)
>
>
> Please. Most prominent liberals came from Europe, most importantly 
> from the UK.

Yes, I said *Anglo*-American -- "Anglo" is to England as "Sino" is to 
China when I was still in a British philosophy department,  Classical 
liberalism is English in origin, the Anglo-American philosophical 
tradition is shared primarily by British and US institutions. On the 
Continent, folk are prone, well, to Continental philosophy -- the 
phenomenological tradition -- my background (tho I'm a Brit).

>
> Paula:
>
>> Representative democracy is not only conceptually flawed but,
>
>
> I cannot find anything in your article that is specific for 
> "representative democracy."

The West is specific for representative democracy. Or so they say . . .

>
> 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?


Iraq occupation is illegal in the opinion of the British Foreign Office 
-- it seems pretty clear that the FO bowed to goverment pressure to make 
a false statement prior to the invations: 
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5374

Torture: Guantanamo documentation collated by Amnesty International: 
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-library-eng
Torture in the US penal system: 
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webamrcountries/UNITED+STATES+OF+AMERICA?OpenDocument 

Torture in UK penal system, particularly in Northern Ireland and with 
regard to ethnic minorities: 
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450231998?open&of=ENG-384


>
> Paula:
>
>> illegal detention without trial,
>
>
> Obviously a flaw in the (US/UK) systems, but hardly a result of 
> universalist values.

I am not blaming universalist values for these infractions. I am 
questioning the  function of "universal values" in preventing such 
infractions  -- these are taking place in what is supposed to be 
democratic regimes which enshrine values such as habeas corpus and 
freedom from torture. Fat lot of good those values are doing at the 
moment? My point is that these methods are used by regimes to maintain 
economic injustice. It's not only that universalising values may be an 
imposition on the realities of cultural diversity but also that regimes 
such as the USA and the UK are ignoring both the "universal" liberal 
values on which they're based and international treaties intended to 
universalise basic human rights.

>
> Paula:
>
>> dangerous levels of pollution,
>
>
> How does this debatable statement relate to universalism and/or 
> representative democracy?

Again, values are doing a fat lot of good here.

>
> 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?


I said "new forms" as yet unpredictable. Swiss direct democracy is 
effectively a veto by referendum. I should have said "participatory". 
And I was pretty clear that I don't necessarily see this as a panacea. 
"The people" can be full of crap -- as Switzerland's current problems 
with institutional racism demonstrate.

>
> My favorite article for republicans, who cherish "participatory 
> democracy" so much:
>
> http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/civsoc.htm
>
Liike I said, I'm not convinced by participatory democracy but what's 
your solution? By the way, don't teach me to suck eggs!

>
> Thomas
>
>