Political theory for global ethics

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Many, but not all, global ethicists and proponents of global understandings of ethics and justice are “cosmopolitans”. Essentially this means that they reject positions in international relations or moral theory that limit the scope of duty and obligations to a particular community or geographical location and that they regard all individuals as equal members of the global moral community. There are global ethicists who do not regard all individuals as equal members of the global community: for instance they might make distinctions in terms of nationality, culture or gender, or they might regard the global community as less important than national communities. Thinkers like this may still be global ethicists in terms of being able to “do” global ethics, if they still consider all global actors in their moral decision-making (even if they do not accord all persons the same weight in their reasoning). In other words, if thinkers apply the “global in scope” criterion outlined in Chapter 1 then they can contribute to the global-ethics debate. In Chapter 3 we considered universalism and the moral theories we can use to address the issues of global ethics. The moral theories we considered – ultilitarianism, Kantianism and virtue ethics – originate from the disciplines of ethics and moral philosophy. These provide the background you need to do global ethics; they are the first tools of your “ethical toolbox”. This chapter adds to that toolbox theories of justice and draws not only on moral philosophy, but also on political philosophy and theories of international relations.