"Humanitarian intervention, which is ruled out by realism and the morality of states, can only be justified by a cosmopolitan morality." Discuss.
Lucy White War, Peace and International Ethics Tutor: Mr. Barry Holden Spring 2001 Essay 2: "Humanitarian intervention, which is ruled out by realism and the morality of states, can only be justified by a cosmopolitan morality." Discuss. The concept of humanitarian intervention has been an issue in world politics ever since the Cold War. Since the Gulf War it has been argued1 that there is a need for increased thought about when humanitarian intervention is justifiable. One of the main arguments against the idea of humanitarian intervention is that it contradicts the concept of the sovereignty of states. The leading characteristic of the world political scene in recent centuries is the place of the sovereign state as its chief component. By definition, sovereignty denotes complete exclusion of other states from a state's domestic affairs. Intervention by other states into those affairs thus challenges the essential nature of a state and has consequently always been regarded as a hostile act. Nevertheless intervention has in practice been a common feature of international politics. This essay will discuss whether humanitarian intervention can be justified in relation to the morality of states, realism and cosmopolitan morality. It is widely accepted that there is a clear overlap between human rights and the justification of humanitarian intervention. Most say that,
"Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."
Terence Landman Monday 22 August 5pm Student Number: I.T.P. Essay. Term 3 605L2621 "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" In this academic essay there will be an in depth look at the words of Mill, in terms of actions and their labels of either right and wrong, and those connotations to happiness and, so to speak the reverse of happiness. There will be an attempt through various different channels, to illustrate the absurdity of utilitarianism, in the sense of its mere provisional assessment of promoting happiness. Furthermore this essay will also emphasize the fact that happiness is subjective and the ripple effects this would have on the utilitarian theory. Lastly this essay will deal with the complications utilitarianism might have on an individual's fundamental rights and the fact that though it is sometimes our duty, in terms of moral 'rights' to act in accordance to a utilitarian, this doesn't mean that we need adopt the principle or be forced to always adhere to its policies. In chapter two, 'What Utilitarianism is', Mill makes the statement and claim that morality is based on the foundations that the right thing to do on any occasion is that which aims to give the maximum happiness for all concerned: "... Actions are right in proportion, as they tend to
"Do you agree that Cathy O'Dowd and here fellow mountaineers had no choice but to leave Fran "to die"?"
"Don't leave me here to die" "Do you agree that Cathy O'Dowd and here fellow mountaineers had no choice but to leave Fran "to die"?" In the newspaper article Cathy O'Dowd clearly tries to make the reader believe that she did the right thing. She identifies this in the sub heading "she faced a brutal choice: to risk her own life in a doomed rescue", noticeably the word "doomed" shows there was a severe risk of danger in any rescue attempt. I believe that in a way writing this article has allowed Cathy O'Dowd to exorcise some of her guilt, Cathy wants to explain her experience in full and get the reader to empathise with her. Finally, it may also be possible that Cathy wants to show the story in a feminine perspective. The article does undoubtedly give many good reasons why not to attempt to save Fran. But I am not completely shore that they had "no choice but to leave Fran". The fact that there were nine people on the mountain and that together they couldn't even try to help rescue Fran is rather peculiar. I don't know what others would do, but I would at least try to help, rather than to just leave her "to die". Also, Cathy states that they had been with Fran "for nearly an hour" pondering over what to do, this completely wastes time and any chances of saving her. Cathy is in a moral dilemma, and I believe the moral thing to do would be to attempt a rescue. The three
Religion and Morality (a) Examine the reasons for the view that morality is based upon religion. Many people believe that morality is based upon religion and based on the rules written in the Bible and other holy books. Although, some say that religion is completely opposed to morality and it is wrong to mix the two. Dostoevsky argued that 'religion provides people with a reason to be moral because if there were no God everything would be permitted.' Meaning that there is no point to morality if God didn't set the moral values in the first place. But we could also say that we only behave morally because we are scared of God: 'responsibility and guilt point to God' which is not the right way to think about doing good. We shouldn't behave well in the hopes of a reward or because we are scared, we should do good things because we want to. The Divine Command Theory tells us that our morals are set by a divine power: God. This means everything that God tells us is moral and that we should not judge this as it is the word of God, and God's word is good. But surely, if we are just doing what God says, this takes away our free will, which God gave us, and it undermines the basis of Christianity, when God has said he wants us to choose him rather than to be forced to follow him. Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma also questions whether or not morality is dependent on religion. 'Is 'x' good
Alex McPhee Religious Studies- Ethics Q3a) Describe what is meant by meta-ethics. Meta-ethics is a term used to describe the language of morality and the study of what we are actually doing when we use words such as "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong"; when we talk about something being good is our belief just subjective or are we referring to something objective, factual and real? Meta-ethical philosophers concentrate on trying to define what our moral language actually means rather than trying to find the answers to ethical issues. Studying this language is difficult, partly because we use these words in everyday conversation (for instance, "I found a good pair of walking boots."), whereas in a moral context the words can mean something very different. The philosophers who approach these questions can be categorised in various ways, for example having cognitive or non cognitive views. A cognitivist believes moral statements are about facts and can be classified as true or false. They believe that a statement such as "murder is wrong" is propositional and therefore its truth can be known. A non-cognitivist believes that moral statements are not propositions and are neither true nor false. For example, a non-cognitivist would say the statement "murder is wrong" is not based on facts and its truth or falsity cannot be known. An example of a non- cognitive philosopher is
EXAMINE AND CONSIDER RELIGIOUS AND ETHICAL RESPONSES TO ANIMAL EXPERMINATATIONS In this Essay I will be examining and considering religious and ethical responses to animal experimentation reviewing whether the argument for or against outweighs the other. One of the questions facing society today is whether animals should be used in scientific experimentation. Animal experimentation is widely used to develop a range of medicines and to test the safety of them and other products. But many of theses experiments cause pain and suffering upon animals and some end up with a reduced quality of life. If it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer then experimenting on animals produces serious moral problems. Animal experimenters are very aware of this ethical problem and acknowledge that experiments should be made as humane as possible. They also agree that it's wrong to use animals if alternative testing methods would produce equally valid results. More than 2.7 million live animal experiments were authorised in Great Britain in 2002 is this ethically and religiously moral? The number of testing on animals has halved in the last 30 years as the laws and restrictions have become tighter, the British law requires that any new drug that has been produced must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal. One must be a large non-rodent however UK regulations are
Explain the difference between a hypothetical and categorical imperative - Do you think that the categorical imperative, as presented by Kant, provides a sufficient guide to what is right or wrong?
Explain the difference between a hypothetical and categorical imperative. Do you think that the categorical imperative, as presented by Kant, provides a sufficient guide to what is right or wrong? A categorical imperative is an absolute and universal moral obligation. One of the most famous is Kant's categorical imperative because it is through him that the phrase is widely known. According to Kant, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will, that it become a universal law." Another variation, which he used, was "Act only on a principle all rational agents could act on." Most religious moral systems comprise categorical imperatives. In Kant's philosophy, it denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that allows no exceptions, and is both required and justified as an end in itself, not as a means to some other end; the opposite of a hypothetical imperative. Hypothetical imperatives take the conditional form of "If you want to achieve goal X, you must perform act A." Hypothetical imperatives are not universal or absolute, because they are necessarily conditioned on some goal or desire. For example, if you wish to remain healthy, then you should not eat spoiled food. Thus, a hypothetical imperative is not justified in itself, but as a means to an end; whether it is in force as a command depends on whether the end it helps attain is desired (or
There should be no moral absolutes in sexual behaviour (45) There are many views on how to govern sexual behaviour and what is morally right or wrong. Absolutism is used when people believe an ethical theory has objective morals which are fixed and unchangeable. And moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should" are rendered meaningless. In this way, moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral. There are some main principles which govern sexual behaviour the first of which is consent. The general view to this principle as most people would agree is for any sexual act to be moral it must be consensual. Although just because someone consents to something, it doesn't make it moral or right. For example someone may give consent but feel pressured into the act. In this case it could be said that the sexual behaviour isn't consensual. The next two principles would be moral and personal harm. The main view of moral harm caused by sexual behaviour is that it shouldn't cause harm
The key difference between someone using counselling skills and a qualified and trained counsellor is that 'the counsellor is bound by a code of ethics and practice and carries a set of professional responsibilities' (1) Generally anyone can be trained
Assignment Unit 1: Professional Framework Report Assignment Contents: Criteria 1 Differences between a Person Using Counselling Skills and a Qualified and Trained Counsellor Criteria 2 The BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy Criteria 3 Comparison of BACP Framework to other Codes and Organisational Requirements Criteria 4 Key Issues Criteria 5 Safety Criteria 6 Importance of Casework and Managerial Supervision Bibliography Criteria 1 Differences between a Person Using Counselling Skills and a Qualified and Trained Counsellor The key difference between someone using counselling skills and a qualified and trained counsellor is that 'the counsellor is bound by a code of ethics and practice and carries a set of professional responsibilities' (1) Generally anyone can be trained to use counselling skills however often they use them in the context of their own environment i.e. Nurses use skills at work but are bound by their own employer's set of standards and practices, therefore counselling skills can be subject to a conflict in interests e.g. a Nurse who has used counselling skills with a patient may be obliged to disclose information given if their employer's guidelines dictate so i.e. the patient discloses that they are HIV Positive. This conflict of interest, on the whole, does not exist with the trained and qualified
Does a declaration of war justify behaviour that would be unacceptable in peacetime? Whether or not the declaration of Just War justifies behaviour that is morally or legally unacceptable in peacetime depends firstly on the sort of behaviour we are talking about. There are a number of behaviours that are legally permitted in peacetime that many people would and do reject as morally unacceptable. This includes abortion, euthanasia and animal rights. The legal acceptability of these issues depends on the government, and varies from state to state. In this country, during peacetime it is acceptable to kill in self defence - for instance, if one's house is being robbed and the burglar threatens the owner, the owner would not be penalized for shooting and killing the burglar. Pacifists object to all kinds of killing in both war and peacetime, whereas just war supporters try to draw parallels between civil justice and international justice in the attempt to justify certain behaviour. There are also behaviors such as propaganda, espionage and deliberate infringement of human rights that are more doubtful and are usually seen as unacceptable in peacetime. Certain examples of violent behaviour in peacetime in hindsight appear unacceptable, yet at the time those guilty were not prosecuted. There have been a number of incidents when armed Police officers have shot dead suspects who