[Air-l] universal ethics?

[Thomas Koenig]

Paula,
Selon Paula <pmg at gmx.co.uk>:

> Replies interleaved:
>
> Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > 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?

With particularist ethics I simply mean non-universalist ethics. In the
other post I gave racism as an (admittedly biased) example for a
particularist value system (if we can construct it for the time being as a
coherent system), but you can constuct of course much more benign
particularist systems.

I was just making the point that it's hardly a defining property of liberal
universalist values that they were (ab)used to legitimize (unjust)
inequality. Any dominant value system is prone to be used or abused by the
dominant classes, so I would hesitate to jump from "has been used for the
interest of dominant classes" to "is unusable for universal ethics."

[Nomads and habeas corpus rights]
> 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.

Of course, any rights are historically specific, as they are socially
constructed. Who would deny that? But we are living in a historical period,
which is dominated by nation states. In that period nomads do/would benefit
from habeas corpus rights, even if these were not indegineuos to nomads
(why not?). Unless you think that (any) nomadic rights or organizational
system would be superior, why would it matter that nomadic societies *did*
not know habeas corpus?

[...]

> 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.

I am unfamiliar with most varieties Islamism, but I am sure that there are
Islamic groups, whose goals are inimical to liberal universalism. In the
part of the world where I live it is mostly Christian groups, which
effectively challenge liberal values. I would say that certainly the state
should not endorse some Christian conceptions of homosexuality, even if
these are endemic to "Christian culture." A core (universliast) liberal
value is individual freedom, which should not be unduly curtailed by any
form of association.

> 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

Haven't read the link yet, but I am sure that there are good arguments that
Mill's philosophy had a patriachal bias. After all, he lived at a time,
when patrachy was hegemonic (in Gramsci's sense), so how would you expect
him *not* to be chauvinist to some extent? However, at the time, he was
hardly at the ideological forefront of the "keep patriachy" movement.
Therefore, I think it makes sense to look at what exactly was patriachal in
his thinking, rather than to debunk his ideas and those of his later
followers altogether as anti/non-feminist.

> 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).

Sorry, my mistake, I interpreted Anglo-American as American of a certain
heritage. I obviously should have known better.

Guess, the grass is always greener on the other side, since I am European
from the Continent and obviously prefer Anglo-American traditions.

> > I cannot find anything in your article that is specific for
> > "representative democracy."
>
> The West is specific for representative democracy. Or so they say . . .

Maybe, but what's then representative of participatory/republican democracy?
Attac? Robespierre? A neigborhood watch association?

[Torture in US/UK]

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5374
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webamrcountries/UNITED+STATES+OF+AMERICA?OpenDocument
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450231998?open&of=ENG-384

OK, I agree with that (I thought you were referring to the widely-publicized
incidents of torture, which were not endorsed by the US/UK, but nevertheless
happened under their jurisdiction). However, I still cannot see how liberal
universalist values would endorse torture?

[...]

> 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.

But now you are critizing the (failing) implementation of these values
rather than the values themselves. I would not contest that criticism.

> 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.

I agree on the last half of the sentence, but would like to point out that
state-endorsed values are always "imposed" on parts of the population. I am
happy to go along with that democratic principle, as long as some minimal
citizenship rights are ensured for everyone. It's of course up for
discussion, what are exactly these rights.

[...]

> 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.

Oh, but I took it (also) as participatory democracy, which I cannot see to
be a safeguard against the practices that you (rightfully in my view)
debunk. Quite to the contrary, I think that "participatory democracy" might
lead to even more unjust situations, as empirically those who participate
tend to be drawn from particular social strata ("new middle classes" to use
a buzzword).

> Liike I said, I'm not convinced by participatory democracy but what's
> your solution?

Universal(ist/-izing) liberal democracy sounds to me the most reasonable
solution.

> By the way, don't teach me to suck eggs!

Sorry, I did not mean to be patronizing, but intended to be polemical (as I
(mis?)took your post as polemics).

Thomas

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