Ethics of Foreign PolicyEthics of Foreign Policy

How can we judge our How can we judge our leaders’ actions?leaders’ actions?

I. Bases of ethicsI. Bases of ethics

A.A. Consequentialism = Right and wrong depend Consequentialism = Right and wrong depend on consequences of our actions. Examples:on consequences of our actions. Examples:

1.1. Oppenheim’s “practical necessity”Oppenheim’s “practical necessity”2.2. UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

B.B. Deontology: Certain acts are right or wrong Deontology: Certain acts are right or wrong regardless of consequencesregardless of consequences

1.1. Argument from divine revelation: Certain acts Argument from divine revelation: Certain acts prohibited by moral law even though no prohibited by moral law even though no punishment/consequencespunishment/consequences

2.2. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act only when you Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act only when you want your behavior to become a universal law – want your behavior to become a universal law – also implies that one must always treat people as also implies that one must always treat people as ends in themselves and never merely as meansends in themselves and never merely as means

II. Goals: National vs. Global II. Goals: National vs. Global InterestsInterests

A.A. National Interest: Sometimes National Interest: Sometimes incoherent (Arrow’s Theorem) but incoherent (Arrow’s Theorem) but probably includes physical and probably includes physical and economic securityeconomic security

1.1. Implication: Governments should value Implication: Governments should value own citizens’ welfare above welfare of own citizens’ welfare above welfare of othersothers

2.2. Problem: Identifying long-term national Problem: Identifying long-term national interest is hard or even impossibleinterest is hard or even impossible

B. The global interest: Everyone is B. The global interest: Everyone is equalequal

1.1. Implication: Equal moral weight to Implication: Equal moral weight to every lifeevery life

2.2. Problem: Requires governments to Problem: Requires governments to sacrifice their own people for the sacrifice their own people for the good of othersgood of others

III. Four Views of International III. Four Views of International EthicsEthics

Legitimate Goal of Policy

National National InterestInterest Global InterestGlobal Interest

ConsequentialiConsequentialismsm

PrescriptivPrescriptive Realisme Realism

DeontologyDeontologyEth

ical

Sta

nd

ard

A. Prescriptive RealismA. Prescriptive Realism

1.1. Oppenheim’s 1987 Argument (Practical Oppenheim’s 1987 Argument (Practical Necessity):Necessity):

a.a. Morality implies choiceMorality implies choice – to say that a state – to say that a state shouldshould take Action A instead of Action B is to take Action A instead of Action B is to imply that it does indeed have a choice.imply that it does indeed have a choice.

b.b. Practical necessity makes morality irrelevantPractical necessity makes morality irrelevant – – Even if a state Even if a state has a choicehas a choice between Actions A between Actions A and B, if it and B, if it faces extinctionfaces extinction if it pursues Action if it pursues Action B, then it is practically necessary for it to B, then it is practically necessary for it to pursue Action Apursue Action A

c.c. National interest is necessary goalNational interest is necessary goal – States that – States that fail to pursue the national interest get eaten by fail to pursue the national interest get eaten by those that do those that do critical step: does this happen? critical step: does this happen?

d.d. It is It is not rational to oppose something that is not rational to oppose something that is practically necessarypractically necessary, since no genuine choice , since no genuine choice exists. exists.

2. Implications of Practical 2. Implications of Practical NecessityNecessity

a.a. Recommending national interest: Recommending national interest: RedundantRedundant

b.b. Opposing it: IrrationalOpposing it: Irrational

Oppenheim’s Hierarchy of GoalsOppenheim’s Hierarchy of Goals

c. When goal is compatible with c. When goal is compatible with national interestnational interest

i.i. Only one effective means available: Only one effective means available: Support redundant, opposition irrational.Support redundant, opposition irrational.

ii.ii. Several effective means available: Several effective means available: Morality comes into play.Morality comes into play.• Some means more effective than others: Some means more effective than others:

irrational to oppose the more effective irrational to oppose the more effective means and redundant to oppose the less means and redundant to oppose the less effective means. (If something is necessary, effective means. (If something is necessary, then it must be pursued using the best then it must be pursued using the best means at hand.)means at hand.)

• Several equally effective means available: Several equally effective means available: Moral choice existsMoral choice exists

3. Oppenheim’s 2002 Argument: 3. Oppenheim’s 2002 Argument: Primary GoodsPrimary Goods

a.a. National interest defined as a list of National interest defined as a list of goods which are needed to pursue goods which are needed to pursue any other national goalsany other national goals

b.b. Since pursuing any goal means Since pursuing any goal means acquiring primary goods, states acquiring primary goods, states mustmust pursue primary goods pursue primary goods

c.c. Argument shifts to Argument shifts to satisficingsatisficing of of primary goods, not maximizing primary goods, not maximizing them (because maximizing might them (because maximizing might cause undesirable side-effects)cause undesirable side-effects)

4. Problems with Prescriptive 4. Problems with Prescriptive RealismRealism

a.a. Normative basis of self-interested Normative basis of self-interested rationality not defended. Selfish rationality not defended. Selfish rationality assumed to be valuable for its rationality assumed to be valuable for its own sake.own sake.

b.b. National Interest can be incoherent: National Interest can be incoherent: Arrow’s Theorem implies that if different Arrow’s Theorem implies that if different people have different long-term interests, people have different long-term interests, there may not be a policy that makes all there may not be a policy that makes all better off than the alternativebetter off than the alternative

c.c. Vagueness: National interest is defined as Vagueness: National interest is defined as what is what is objectivelyobjectively best, rather than best, rather than subjective preferencesubjective preference

III. Four Views of International III. Four Views of International EthicsEthics

Legitimate Goal of Policy

National National InterestInterest Global InterestGlobal Interest

ConsequentialiConsequentialismsm

PrescriptivPrescriptive Realisme Realism UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

DeontologyDeontologyEth

ical

Sta

nd

ard

B. UtilitarianismB. Utilitarianism

1.1. Fundamental principle: Greatest Fundamental principle: Greatest good for the greatest number. good for the greatest number. Everyone’s happiness counts equally.Everyone’s happiness counts equally.

2.2. Implications: If utility of money is Implications: If utility of money is non-linear (diminishing), then wealth non-linear (diminishing), then wealth transfer from rich people to poor transfer from rich people to poor people is probably best (exception: if people is probably best (exception: if transfer inhibits so much wealth transfer inhibits so much wealth creation that even the poor are creation that even the poor are worse off)worse off)

3. Problems with Utilitarianism3. Problems with Utilitarianism

a.a. Vagueness – “The greatest good” is even Vagueness – “The greatest good” is even more problematic than “national more problematic than “national interest”interest”

b.b. Incorrect calculations can justify Incorrect calculations can justify anything – Example: economic benefits anything – Example: economic benefits and social stability used to justify slaveryand social stability used to justify slavery

c.c. Distributive justice – Utilitarianism allows Distributive justice – Utilitarianism allows us to treat people unfairly for the benefit us to treat people unfairly for the benefit of others (kill half and give their stuff to of others (kill half and give their stuff to the rest, cutting pollution in the process)the rest, cutting pollution in the process)

III. Four Views of International III. Four Views of International EthicsEthics

Legitimate Goal of Policy

National National InterestInterest Global InterestGlobal Interest

ConsequentialiConsequentialismsm

PrescriptivPrescriptive Realisme Realism UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

DeontologyDeontology Social Social ContractContract

Eth

ical

Sta

nd

ard

C. Social ContractC. Social Contract

1.1. Fundamental principle: Treat people Fundamental principle: Treat people as ends and not merely meansas ends and not merely means

a.a. Legitimacy: Government power is moral Legitimacy: Government power is moral if and only if exercised by consent of if and only if exercised by consent of people for the end of securing their rightspeople for the end of securing their rights

b.b. Property is a natural right: people would Property is a natural right: people would naturally acquire things and seek to naturally acquire things and seek to retain them even if there were no retain them even if there were no governmentgovernment

c.c. Theft is doubly wrong: Treats people as Theft is doubly wrong: Treats people as means to an end and violates their means to an end and violates their natural property rightsnatural property rights

2. Implications2. Implications

a.a. Government must serve national interest Government must serve national interest – interests of the people determine right – interests of the people determine right and wrong for their governmentand wrong for their government

b.b. Defense is moral – Consent can be Defense is moral – Consent can be inferred for the continued survival of the inferred for the continued survival of the peoplepeople

c.c. Reject foreign aid and charity – Taxing Reject foreign aid and charity – Taxing (theft) some to help others is wrong. (theft) some to help others is wrong. Treats people as means rather than endsTreats people as means rather than ends

d.d. All lives are not equal – each government All lives are not equal – each government exists to promote the welfare of a limited exists to promote the welfare of a limited group, not everyonegroup, not everyone

3. Problems with the Social 3. Problems with the Social Contract approachContract approach

a.a. Delegation problem: If people have no Delegation problem: If people have no right to oppress others, how can they right to oppress others, how can they delegate that right to their government?delegate that right to their government?

b.b. Confuses consent to Confuses consent to governmentgovernment with with consent to each consent to each government actgovernment act: People : People may agree to be bound by a process that may agree to be bound by a process that sometimes harms themsometimes harms them

c.c. Circumstances may require government Circumstances may require government to treat foreigners as means to the end to treat foreigners as means to the end of domestic happiness or propertyof domestic happiness or property

III. Four Views of International III. Four Views of International EthicsEthics

Legitimate Goal of Policy

National National InterestInterest Global InterestGlobal Interest

ConsequentialiConsequentialismsm

PrescriptivPrescriptive Realisme Realism UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

DeontologyDeontology Social Social ContractContract

CosmopolitaniCosmopolitanismsm

Eth

ical

Sta

nd

ard

D. CosmopolitanismD. Cosmopolitanism

1.1. Fundamental principle: Categorical Fundamental principle: Categorical Imperative (Behave in ways that Imperative (Behave in ways that you think others should behave)you think others should behave)

2.2. Variant: “Veil of Ignorance.” Variant: “Veil of Ignorance.” Assume decisions must be made Assume decisions must be made without knowing your own place in without knowing your own place in the world. Which world do you the world. Which world do you want to live in, if you didn’t know want to live in, if you didn’t know where you would be born?where you would be born?

3. Implications of Cosmopolitanism3. Implications of Cosmopolitanism

a.a. Negotiate international laws and follow Negotiate international laws and follow them once negotiated – law is morally them once negotiated – law is morally binding because we want others to follow itbinding because we want others to follow it

b.b. Two wrongs don’t make a right – Two wrongs don’t make a right – noncompliance by others does not end the noncompliance by others does not end the moral force of lawmoral force of law

c.c. Do the right thing even when no law exists. Do the right thing even when no law exists. Orend’s example: Follow precepts of “Just Orend’s example: Follow precepts of “Just War Theory” because goal should be a War Theory” because goal should be a more just state of affairs (no aggression, no more just state of affairs (no aggression, no targeting civilians, seek a peace more just targeting civilians, seek a peace more just than the antebellum status quo)than the antebellum status quo)

4. Problems with Cosmopolitanism4. Problems with Cosmopolitanism

a.a. Objections to law-as-moralityObjections to law-as-moralityi.i. New state dilemma – Why obey rules to which New state dilemma – Why obey rules to which

the state never consented?the state never consented?ii.ii. Changing state dilemma – Stronger states want Changing state dilemma – Stronger states want

to revoke consent to rules that protect the weakto revoke consent to rules that protect the weakiii.iii. Legal indeterminacy – Law frequently contradicts Legal indeterminacy – Law frequently contradicts

itselfitself

b.b. Theory requires detachment from self – is Theory requires detachment from self – is this even possible?this even possible?

c.c. Notion of states as moral actors – does Notion of states as moral actors – does responsibility lie with “peoples” or responsibility lie with “peoples” or governments? Each wants to pass the governments? Each wants to pass the buck…buck…