Ethics And Morality In International Relations

ETHICS AND MORALITY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Name:
Course Code:
Date:
SUMMARY
Summary of Global care ethics: beyond distribution, beyond justice CITATION Rob132 \l 1033 (Robinson, 2013)
The author argues that care ethics must be brought on board the discussions on how to end global injustices. She argues that the global injustices are institutionalized by an underlying framework that is supported by politics. The issues and injustices around the world can be directly or remotely traced to present-day and historical politics and thus, global injustices must be re-politicized and viewed from the lens of care ethics which perceives the subject as ‘embodied, vulnerable and relational.’
Theory and distributive justice
The author points out that the existent approach to global injustices is based on ‘ideal ethical theory that then can be ‘applied’ to global politics.’ Rather it should start with broadly analyzing and interpreting global politics to find the root cause and scope of injustices. She argues that the ideological approach which has often been adopted is blind to the core causes of global injustices and of does not directly confront them.
Care, Masculinities and Neoliberalism
There is still feminization of poverty and other structures that have institutionalized women around the globe. The author argues that the neoliberalism approach using idealized theories overlook the ‘ethical necessity.’ The global framework is hinged on ‘weak normative basis for policy-making and institution building’ which have stifled the efforts to confront the core causes of the institutionalized injustices. Noting that things like feminization of poverty has been increasing despite the global movements to ‘liberate’ women from traditional institutionalized patriarchal norms.
A care-ethics approach to global injustices
The author suggests a relational, intersecting and multi-scalar approaches in care-ethics approach to global injustices. The author argues that the relational approach will tap into the innate human nature that dictates the ‘way we think and act’ in such a way that it brings out a natural need to have a sense of responsibility for others. in advocating for intersecting approach, the author argues that the approach to global injustices must move beyond ‘distribution’ or ‘institutions’ because these are the very structures that have enabled it to prevail. The author argues that the multi-scaler approach accounts to the nature of ‘global injustices as situated at multiple scales.’
Concisely, the author argues that the distributive theories of global justice are ineffective the fight on global injustices and that most of the existent measures are oblivious of their intentional and unintentional institutionalizing of injustices such as promoting masculinity. Hence, she advocates for ‘relationality, vulnerability and shifting inequalities as natural features of human life’ and calls for integration of moral compass to direct approaches to global injustices.
The major strength of the article is that the author has heavily incorporates secondary research to substantiate her opinions on the issue. The secondary research sources are credible and mostly they are peer reviewed articles. On the other hand, the major inherent weakness of the article is that the author has overlooked the relevance and importance of existing approaches to fighting global injustices in her new model approach whose overarching idea is ‘morality.’ It is important to recognize that the existent approaches have made significant progress and though far from perfect, they are still effective. The article itself presents an opportunity for future research to find out the efficacy of global care ethics in addressing global injustices.
Summary of Morality, Policy, and Theory by Robert Jervis (Jervis, 2011)
Jervis bases his article on the 1954 Conference on International politics. He begins by noting that the participants may not be pleased with the progress the world has made on foreign policy and morality (Jervis, 2011). He holds that morality is essential in politics. Although some versions of realism denounce morality, a majority of realists agree that political leaders should not abandon morality. The majority of the realists in the conference agreed that humans were inherently evil or had the potential for evil within them. In this regard, the national survival meant doing evil, although political leaders were supposed to avoid becoming evil in the process. In this regard, morality can make sense where leaders if the leaders were aware of their immoral impulses.
Jervis believes that while humans are not perfect, there is a need for states to minimize evil and make the world a better place (Jervis, 2011). He cri...