Introduction
“Globalisation is the Yeti of … newspapers. Everybody
knows it, but nobody has ever seen it. What does it look like? Tall,
monkeyish, hairy? Or rather weasel-like? With glasses? Like a ferret or a
marten?”1
Wackwitz S. Und ewig fiept
das Tamagotchi. Die Woche Extra 1997;December 19:25 (our
translation).
Globalization means different things to different
people, a laudable development uniting humankind or an epidemic crushing
the vulnerable peoples of the earth.
2 A false
contrast; an ideal start to enrage the critical thinker but catch
everybody else's attention.
Whether it is something we can
control remains to be seen, but it is certainly upon us. The move to
“go global” is such a strong force that hardly any human
activity is exempt. We have global treaties, global media, global
celebrities, global bookstores, and even a global antiglobalization
movement!
Some activities are more successful than others in going global: At
the turn of the millennium, 51 of the 100 largest economies in the world
were corporations (49 were countries). The combined sales of the top 200
corporations were bigger than the combined economies of all countries
worldwide except the biggest 10.3
Anderson S,
Cavanagh J. Top 200—The Rise of Corporate Global Power.
Washington: Institute for Policy Studies. Available from:
http://www.ips-dc.org/downloads/Top_200.pdf, accessed
January 22, 2005. First calculation based on a comparison of corporate
sales with country GDPs.
How about ethics? Has it gone global
yet?
In this paper we analyze the main parameters influencing the
“globalization of ethics” and attempt to outline the shape of
a useful and realistic international debate on the topic. But why is this
inquiry necessary? The answer is easy to provide based on the default
definition of globalization (“to operate across national
divisions”4
The New Oxford
Dictionary of English. For a summary of more detailed definitions,
see Schroeder D. Work Incentives and Welfare Provision—The
Pathological Theory of Unemployment. Aldershot: Ashgate;
2000:131–6.
). If everything else is discussed at the global
level, the same should apply to ethics.
Because people from different cultures and beliefs already come
together to discuss and negotiate international agreements, it is only a
matter of time before ethical issues will be debated. This is unavoidable
because complex agreements require an ever higher amount of convergence,
as evident in international legislation on economic policy.5
For instance, the World Trade Organization is in
the process of converging national legislation based on great cultural
differences (e.g., United States, China, Cuba, Russia) within its
trade-related agreements, an unprecedented and enforceable step at the
global level.
It might therefore make sense to talk about
“global ethics,” referring to international debates on ethics.
Or does it?
The Definition of Global Ethics
G.K. Chesterton once remarked that somebody who shot their grandmother
from five hundred yards was certainly a good shot but not necessarily a
good man. The question “What is good?” has been occupying
human beings for millennia and controversies are not subsiding. The
academic field of ethics observes, notes, and categorizes such discussions
in various ways. Descriptive ethics deals with the pure
description of ethical beliefs. For instance, in the past, slavery was
considered natural and just6
Aristotle.
Politik. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag 1981:8ff
(1254a–1255a).
and burning willing widows with their dead
husbands (
suttee) was considered the right thing to do. Whether
an outside observer agrees with the practice or not is irrelevant to
descriptive ethics.
Normative ethics looks at systematical
approaches to answer moral questions, aiming to provide a reliable means
to distinguish good actions from bad actions. Such means could be Immanuel
Kant's categorical imperative or Jeremy Bentham's utility
principle. On a higher level of reasoning,
metaethics hopes to
answer questions such as: Can any of the normative ethical approaches
claim universal validity? Or is all talk of morality just an evolutionary
adaptive illusion?
When one adds an adjective to a noun (global to
ethics), definitions are easily obtained as long as the noun
ethics is satisfactorily defined. Global means
“relating to the whole world,” so global ethics
should mean ethics in its individual guises (descriptive, normative, meta)
with the addition that it applies to the whole world. Of course, this is
already the case with descriptive ethics. The field is only attractive
when one looks at various cultures with different ethical beliefs. In this
regard, global descriptive ethics would be no different from
unmarried bachelor.
To add global to ethics becomes more interesting
when one looks at normative ethics. Most normative ethical thought in the
West has been of a universalizing nature. If the categorical imperative
says: “Do x!”, this command applies whether one deals with a
stranger or a close family member.7
Of
course, not all Western moral systems are universalizing. A feminist
ethics of care, for instance, is more akin to sub-Sahara African thought
than to Kantian deontology.
Many traditional sub-Saharan ethical
systems, on the other hand, are not of a universalizing nature. Before one
can decide what one ought to do (What is “x”?), one needs to
know in which relationship the agent stands to the object of the decision.
For instance, a reason to give somebody shelter might be “because
she is my kinswoman,” not because she has specific needs.
8 Appial AK. Ethical systems, African. In: Craig
E, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge,
accessed June 11, 2004 (www.rep.routledge.com).
Within such
anti-universalizing systems, it is impossible to find one overriding
command or principle that will guide all action. Hence, if one wants to
find a
global normative ethical theory, the massive quarrels
within Western philosophy will suddenly appear minor.
Moving from local to global in search for the normative
ethical system focuses philosophical thinkers even more onto metaethical
questions, particularly: Could any single ethical system be the right one
whereas all others are mistaken? It is, indeed, in metaethics that the
most interesting debates are to be had about global ethics, an all-time
favorite question being: Are human rights a Western invention based on
nonuniversalizable deontological thought?9
Sakamoto H. Towards a new “global bioethics.”
Bioethics 1999;13:191–7.
Or are they the moral
basis for human flourishing and happiness worldwide and therefore worth
fighting for?
10 Nussbaum M. Women and
Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 2001.
A lot of work needs to be done in global
metaethics, but it is unnecessary to add the word
global to
ethics in this context. Metaethicists were always interested in
either (a) universally valid answers or (b) a proof that item a is
impossible.
What does this short discussion tell us about the definition of
global ethics? It means that it does not make sense to speak of
global ethics and restrict the word to academic debates in the realm of
moral philosophy. In their essence, descriptive and metaethics have to
be global and to add more normative ethical systems to the existing
jungle will not make a qualitative difference without attempted
metaethical answers. That ethics debates in the West were and are often
conducted without regard for non-Western moral thought is an empirical
fact rather than an essential element of ethics. If this were not the
case, one would have to show that ethicists are purposefully
rather than negligently or patronizingly blinkered (e.g., racist, sexist),
which would be highly difficult, if at all possible. But this is not the
end of the story. There are more possible meanings of global ethics that
we have not yet considered.
We are sympathetic to the view that ethics as an academic discipline
in the West has been a biased undertaking in the past, and that—as a
21st century academic—one might want to use the term global
ethics to distance oneself from this past. In that case, global
ethics would be ethics as it should be done in academia, but
one would add global to demonstrate one's awareness of past
failures (e.g., racism). Although we understand this view, we do not
subscribe to it for two reasons: (a) Political philosophers who write
about international justice are not described as “global political
philosophers”; they are just “political philosophers”
working on a global topic. The same should apply to ethicists. Academic
ethicists interested in issues of international justice and so forth are
still ethicists. If this were not the case, the discipline would either
have to adopt a new name whenever issues of global relevance are discussed
(and this is increasingly so in almost all areas of metaethics and applied
ethics) or they would have to accept that they are purposefully not doing
ethics as they should do, except for the small group who call themselves
“global ethicists.” (b) “Ethics” and its
practitioners can be wrong, but so can “global ethics” and its
practitioners. However, a separation suggests that one group has got it
right and the other has got it wrong. If it were just a matter of defining
which specialism one has as an academic (e.g., international justice), one
would not need such a distinction (see political philosophy). And although
we can see that awareness raising and being open-minded are extremely
important, we believe that “ethics” should cover particular
and global academic discussions about morality within academia, as it does
in any other field.11
At the research
seminar in Birmingham, the point was raised that although one does not
seem to distinguish political philosophers and global political
philosophers, one does distinguish academics working on international law
from those working on national law. But does it really make sense to speak
of academic work on national versus international ethics outside the small
confines of descriptive ethics? And even here, one's field would be
descriptive ethics, not global descriptive ethics, whether one looked at
the ethical beliefs of English miners or those of the San community in
Namibia.
Still, there is one more possibility for the definition of global
ethics. When somebody says: “Have you considered the
ethics?” or “One could question the ethics of such and such
agreement” or “What are the ethical implications of your
undertaking?”, they are not talking about the academic study of
moral principles. They are talking about substance, the attempt to
transform the relevant realm into a place more conducive to human
flourishing.12
To illustrate that such
questions are an unavoidable part of life in Western Europe, an example
from today's TV Guide (Radio Times, January 22–28,
2005:64). The program: “Reality—So You Think You Can
Teach.” The text: “We've all seen the ads suggesting how
rewarding it is to be a teacher, and some of us may be tempted to give it
a go. But you may question the ethics of unleashing a trio of
celebrities on young children for our entertainment” (our
emphasis).
In the political context, for instance, the British
government acknowledges a universal right to medical care as prescribed by
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
13 General Assembly of the United Nations.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 1948. Available from:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html, accessed: January
22, 2005.
It commits itself to a universal service for all based
on clinical need, not ability to pay.
14 Department of Health. Your Guide to the NHS. 2000.
Available from:
http://www.sdah-tr.trent.nhs.uk/pdfs/patient/nhs_guide.pdf,
accessed January 22, 2005.
This is in stark contrast to the U.S.
government's approach to healthcare coverage, which is nonuniversal
and based on ability to pay. In the United States, an “estimated
15.6 percent of the population, or 45.0 million people, were without
health insurance coverage in 2003, up from 15.2 percent and 43.6 million
people in 2002.”
15 DeNavas-Walt C,
Proctor BD, Mills RJ. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage
in the United States: 2003. Washington: U.S. Census Bureau. Available
from: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf,
p. 14, accessed January 22, 2005.
It is needless to say that the
question “What are the ethical implications of your
undertaking?” would attract more criticism for the American than for
the British government as citizens in both countries are likely to affirm
that health is a fundamental condition for human flourishing. Given the
above, we suggest the following definition for
global ethics:
Global ethics is not a field of academic study, it
is an activity: the attempt to agree on fundamental conditions for human
flourishing and to actively secure them for all.16
We are aware that any attempt at defining a concept
potentially closes off other possibilities and therefore dialogue. We hope
to stimulate dialogue nevertheless.
Part of this activity might take place in academic circles, but it can
never be meaningfully restricted to them.
The Challenges of Global Ethics
If the task for global ethics is to agree on fundamental conditions
for human flourishing and to secure them for all, what are the challenges
lying ahead? We shall list five issues. Some of our challenges require
explanations, whereas some are self-explanatory and will therefore only be
illustrated with examples, such as the first challenge.
Challenge 1: Global Inequalities, and Inequities That
Are Almost Impossible to Remedy
[bull ] Nutrition: More than 800 million people in the world
go hungry, with an estimated 6 million children in the developing world
dying from hunger-related diseases each year. The United Nations
Development Program estimates that the basic health and nutrition needs of
the world's poorest people could be met for an additional $13 billion
a year.17
Bread for the World Institute.
Available from:
http://www.bread.org/hungerbasics/index.html, accessed
February 3, 2005.
The Iraq campaign cost the United States $151.1
billion during the fiscal year 2003, more than 11 times as much.
18 UPI. In fact. Prospect August
2004:9.
As a result of undernutrition, worldwide, between 100 and 140
million children suffer from vitamin A deficiency. In 250,000 to 500,000
children, this deficiency leads to blindness and for half of them to death
within 12 months of losing their eyesight.19
World Health Organization. Micronutrient
deficiencies—Combating vitamin A deficiency. Available from:
http://www.who.int/nut/vad.htm, accessed January 22,
2005.
[bull ] AIDS/HIV: The population of sub-Saharan Africa
accounts for just over 10% of the world's population, but for almost
two-thirds of the people living with HIV. Southern African countries have
HIV prevalence rates of over 17% and Botswana and Swaziland over 35%. Only
7% of those affected in developing countries have access to antiretroviral
drugs. If infection and treatment rates continue as they are, 60% of
today's Southern African 15-year-olds will not reach their 60th
birthday.20
UNAIDS. 2004 Report on the
Global Aids Epidemic—Executive Summary. Geneva. Available from:
http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_html/ExecSummary_en/Execsumm_en.pdf.
[bull ] Missing women: Amartya Sen calculated that 100 million
women were missing in the world in the early 1990s because of sex bias in
relative care.21
Sen A. Missing women.
British Medical Journal 1992;304:586–7.
Since
then, economists have developed highly sophisticated demographic
techniques to produce reliable estimates of gender bias in mortality. More
refined calculations have slightly reduced Sen's estimate to 87
million, giving current figures (early 2000s) at 95 million.
22 Klasen L, Wink C. A turning point in gender
bias in mortality? An update on the number of “missing women.”
Population and Development Review 2002;28:285–312.
The main reasons women are missing in the world are sex-selective
abortions, particularly in China and India,
23 See note 22, Klasen, Wink 2002.
and female
infanticide.
24 United Nations Population
Fund. Missing—Mapping the Adverse Child Sex Ration in
India. Available from:
http://www.unfpa.org.in/publications/16_Map%20brochure_English.pdf,
2003, accessed May 30, 2004; United Nations Population Division. Too
Young to Die: Genes or Gender. ST/ESA/SER.A/155.
1998.
Challenge 2: Cultural Differences in Moral
Perspectives
Most cultures have their own views on what distinguishes a good action
from a bad action or a good person from a bad person. Simplified, one
could say that Western moral perspectives rely heavily on the concepts of
individualism and human rights and usually prioritize human over other
life forms. In contrast, the African moral outlook has been described as
“eco-bio-communitarian,”25
Tangwa G. Globalisation or Westernisation? Ethical concerns
in the whole bio-business. Bioethics
1999;13:218–26.
implying a preference for community values
over individualistic values as well as a recognition of the
interdependence of life on earth. Similarly, the essence of the Asian
worldview has been described as “a holistic harmony”
26 Sakamoto H. Towards a new “global
bioethics.” Bioethics 1999;13:191–7.
with a
higher esteem for social over individual values and no strict dichotomy
between humans and nature. These perspectives do not exclude each other,
but, coupled with well-established traditions, present a great challenge
for those attempting to agree on fundamental conditions for human
flourishing. Besides, serious concerns have been raised that some cultures
(Western ones) are impervious to others, even though there is a great
potential for mutual enrichment.
27 Tangwa
GB. Bioethics; An African perspective. Bioethics
1996;10:183–200.
The barriers for intercultural agreement
seem, indeed, insurmountable. A concrete example often given in this
context is female genital mutilation (FGM).
Most people believe that health is one of the most
fundamental conditions for human flourishing, and one might assume
that intercultural agreements can easily be achieved in this area. We take
fundamental to mean that the associated condition, health in this
case, should not be put at risk for something considered less fundamental.
However, this is what many people from Western cultures believe to have
happened when confronted with FGM. It significantly endangers health in
order to ensure chastity. The health and well-being implications from FGM
are—among others—severe pain, shock, urine retention,
ulceration of the genital region, haemorrhage or infection leading to
death, possible transmission of HIV, long-term incontinence, painful
sexual intercourse, difficulties with childbirth, anxiety, and
depression.28
World Health Organization.
Female genital mutilation. Available from:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/,
accessed January 23, 2005.
If a culture prioritizes a goal
(chastity) over health while accepting such extreme consequences, the goal
will have to be considered as a more fundamental condition of human
flourishing for this culture. In that case, chastity is more important
than health and it must be enforced (rather than, e.g., culturally
instilled) with operational procedures on children despite the associated
risks. The implications for intercultural dialogue on moral perspectives
will be clear to readers from both sides and should not be lingered on. It
is obvious where challenges lie. Considering this example, how is one to
achieve agreement on the fundamental conditions for human flourishing? The
challenge is humbling.
Challenge 3: Difficulties in Determining Moral
Perspectives
In an attempt to agree on the fundamental conditions for human
flourishing, one might have to free the essence of moral thought in any
culture from the fragments of social customs, economic conditions, and
political realities (or show that this is impossible). For instance,
depending on political realities, the veiling of women might be regarded
as moral as it ensures the protection of their modesty (Iran) or it might
be regarded as immoral (in French public schools) as it brings ideology
into the context of children's education. Depending on economic
conditions, poaching might be morally acceptable in conditions of famine
and to feed one's family, but not as a leisure pursuit without the
relevant economic pressure. Finally, social customs are not always readily
distinguishable from moral thinking. For example, a reply to FGM could be
that it is not an ethically informed practice. Instead, it is a social
custom, which ethically minded individuals within the culture do not
approve of or would not approve of if they were not socially
conditioned.29
Of course, this challenge
could easily be regarded as paternalistic, according to the maxim,
“The true ethics is ours. If one removes customs from other
culture's ethical essences, this is what will
appear.”
Challenge 4: Lack of a Relevant Global Decisionmaking
Body with Enforcement Authority
Assuming the formulation of fundamental conditions for human
flourishing had been successful and the obstacles to such flourishing had
been identified, the next step would be the attempt to secure them for
all. On a global level, this is most likely to require a global
decisionmaking body with enforcement authority. Why this is a
challenge today, despite the existence of various United Nations organs,
shall be explained using the example of the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO). The FAO is a United Nations forum that aims to
negotiate international agreements and debate international policies on
food and agriculture. In this regard, it is a global decisionmaking
body. However, when it comes to applying international agreements, it
has no genuine enforcement authority. One of the biggest ethical problems
in the world today is lack of food security. The FAO defined food security
as follows:
Food security exists when all people, at all times, have
physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active
and healthy life.30
FAO. Food Security:
Concepts and Measurement. Available from:
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/Y4671E/y4671e06.htm,
accessed March 2, 2005.
Instead, as mentioned above, 800 million people suffer from chronic
hunger. As early as 1996, the World Food Summit in Rome ended with a
pledge by 186 governments to “reaffirm the right of everyone to have
access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate
food and the fundamental right to be free from hunger.”31
World Food Summit. Rome Declaration on
World Food Security. Rome: FAO. Available from:
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/003/W3613E/W3613E00.HTM,
accessed January 22, 2005.
Almost 10 years later, on November 24,
2004, the FAO adopted
voluntary guidelines to “support the
progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of
national food security.“
32 Riddle J.
FAO adopts right to food guidelines. Rome: FAO. Available from:
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/51653/index.html,
accessed January 23, 2005.
Despite being an international forum
linked to the United Nations, the FAO has no enforcement authority to
ensure that the 1996 pledge undertaken in Rome is realized.
Another high-profile international agreement is similarly based on
good will and voluntary compliance rather than enforcement: the eight
Millennium Development Goals.33
United
Nations. UN Millennium Development Goals. Available from:
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/, accessed January 24,
2005. For serious concerns about the first goal, please see Pogge T. The
First UN Millennium Development Goal, at:
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/media/1076_pogge_millenniumgoal2.pdf,
accessed June 9, 2005.
- Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.
- Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education.
- Goal 3: Promote gender equality and promote women.
- Goal 4: Reduce child mortality.
- Goal 5: Improve maternal health.
- Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.
- Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability.
- Goal 8: Develop a partnership for development.
All current 191 member states of the United Nations have pledged to
meet these goals by 2015. However, progress during the first four years
(2000–2004) has been erratic, according to Kofi Annan34
Annan K. Implementation of the United Nations
Millennium Declaration—Report of the Secretary General.
A/59/282. Available from:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/465/40/PDF/N0446540.pdf?OpenElement,
accessed January 24, 2005.
(partly due to the division of the
international community following the events of September 11, 2001, and
the war on Iraq). In sub-Saharan Africa and in the least developed
countries, hardly any progress on any of the goals has been made. On the
contrary, new HIV infections, for instance, showed an all-time high. One
also needs to note that, except for Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden,
no developed country has yet published its report on how to achieve goal
8, in other words, how to act as a credible donor country in the pursuit
of the millennium goals.
Ironically, the only international organizations with considerable
enforcement powers are the ones mostly blamed for worsening the situation
of vulnerable peoples worldwide: that is, the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).35
For a comprehensive view of the IMF and its sister
organization the World Bank's policy impact on world poverty, see
Chossudovsky M. Globalization of Poverty. London: Zed Books;
1997.
The case of the WTO is of particular interest because it
affects the lives of the majority of the world's population directly.
The WTO deals with the rules of trade between nations, thereby providing a
platform for international agreements relevant to almost everybody who
buys goods. Unlike most other international organizations, it has the
power to enforce its agreements and penalize noncompliance with trade
sanctions.
36 As of October 13, 2004, the WTO
had 148 member countries and had processed more than 300 trade disputes.
World Trade Organization homepage. Available from:
http://www.wto.org/, accessed February 4, 2005.
One
of the main WTO agreements “Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights” (TRIPS) consists mainly of a very elaborate regime
of enforcement. Attempts to include ethical issues such as benefit sharing
in TRIPS have been opposed by powerful Western countries.
37 Some developing countries have lobbied the
WTO, unsuccessfully so far, to include “benefit sharing” in
TRIPS in order to protect the rights of vulnerable indigenous populations.
SciDevNet homepage. Available from:
http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fuseaction=dossierItem&Dossier=7&CFID=6138436&CFTOKEN=ab3824090f669c4d-71137DF2-B0D0-F03F-736A75DC90FC6841,
accessed February 7, 2005.
Challenge 5: Historical Injustices
Problems do not come in convenient time slices, ready for our
problem-solving skills, without regard for the past, as Robert Nozick
convincingly argued 30 years ago.38
Nozick
R. Anarchy, State and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers;
1974:153–5.
Historical injustices have to be dealt with or
at least acknowledged before looking toward the future. They come in a
variety of forms and severity: There is (a) state-sanctioned violence and
murder (Stalinism, Pol Pot regime), (b) group exploitation and abuse
(slavery, colonialism), or (c) attempted genocide (Holocaust, Rwanda).
They almost invariably have caused widespread social damage, which is
imprinted in the psychology of future generations. It is notoriously
complicated to deal with historical injustices in a legal manner. From the
Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders to the recent trials of Rwandan Hutus,
from compensation calls from descendants of American slaves to calls for
debt cancellation due to colonial abuse, the legal process is mired in
loopholes and uncertainties. Punishment of original perpetrators is almost
always very difficult (due to time lapse and legal hurdles) whereas
descendants of perpetrators often find it unjust to pay for “the
sins of their fathers.” Nevertheless, this is a serious hurdle in
creating a productive international dialogue, as it is always implicit in
the mistrust shown between discussants.
The Process
How can we move from the situation today, with the above outlined
challenges, to a situation more conducive to human flourishing? We outline
three initiatives we believe to be essential in global ethics.
Initiative 1: Increased Intercultural Dialogue to
Understand Commonalities
One of the main results of globalization is increased awareness of
world cultures, social norms, and traditions. Cultural differences have
been intensely studied in terms of their potential for clashes,39
Huntington S. The Clash of Civilizations
and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster;
1996.
but much less has been done to highlight cultural
commonalities, with a few laudable exceptions. As a result of Iranian
President Khatami's suggestion to embark on a “Dialogue amongst
Civilizations,” Kofi Annan created a group of 20 eminent persons
meant to represent all major world religions and cultures to develop and
discuss a future model of coexistence and mutual understanding.
40 Annan K. Brücken in die
Zukunft—Ein Manifest für den Dialog der Kulturen.
Frankfurt: Fischer, 2001.
Similarly, Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold
from Switzerland would like to foster dialogue about peace with her 1,000
peace women
41 1,000 Women for the Nobel
Peace Prize 2005 homepage. Available from:
http://www.1000peacewomen.org/de/html/, accessed
January 24, 2005.
initiative. Vermot-Mangold and her team started
collecting names of 1,000 women quietly fighting against war, violence,
and injustice. The plan is to apply for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, 100
years after the first female Nobel Peace Laureate (Bertha von Suttner) and
to enable those women to meet, share experiences, and record their
struggles from the proceeds of the award. These high-profile, but rare
initiatives have not yet produced a wider dialogue in the community,
although the former did emphasize the need to establish common ethical
standards.
42 As expressed in article 4 of
the 56/6 UN General Assembly Resolution on “Global Agenda for
Dialogue among Civilizations.” Available from:
http://www.un.org/documents/ares566e.pdf, accessed
February 7, 2005.
Dialogue is a prerequisite for the attainment of human flourishing. It
promotes understanding between cultures, creates the relevant platform for
international cooperation, and promotes international solidarity. It
should, therefore, be fostered worldwide on a local, regional, and
international basis. The need for a multilayer promotion of intercultural
dialogue has been identified by the UN, but lack of funding appears to
have stalled this effort.43
The report of
the UN Secretary General on “Dialogue among Cultures” is clear
on that point. Available from:
http://www.un.org/Dialogue/sponsor.html, accessed February
8, 2005.
Nevertheless, in the current situation where cultures
seem to be shifting further apart, renewed efforts to establish such a
dialogue are necessary. Within the context of global ethics
(
attempting to agree on fundamental conditions for human flourishing
and secure them for all), the main goal has to be to reach a common
understanding of terms and concepts that denote each culture's moral
codes and behavioral prescriptions.
Initiative 2: Trust Building Exercises to Overcome
Historical Injustices
Intercultural dialogue requires willing parties to enter such a
process. Willingness depends, among other things, on the perceived
truthfulness of the other party in its genuine motivation to enter the
dialogue. If the parties trust or can be made to trust each other, the
process is already a success. Unfortunately, past experiences get in the
way of trust building, as they are constant reminders of injustices
committed by one group/culture against another.44
A telling example is the use of the term
“crusade” in connection with the war in Iraq, which created
feelings of strong unease among Muslim cultures, who had suffered in the
past from Christian crusades. See, for example, Bush: The crusade must go
on, at: Defence News,
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_002061.shtml;
accessed June 9, 2005.
To promote dialogue, it is therefore
essential to face historical injustices head-on.
To find appropriate means of doing justice is not easy. It has been
suggested that, in the case of historical injustices, “the best way
of doing justice to the collective legacy is by keeping the memory of the
injustice alive and mourning the victims through political
education.”45
Adam H, Adam K. The
Politics of Memory in Divided Societies. In: James W, van de Vijer L,
eds. After the TRC—Reflections on Truth and Reconciliation in
South Africa. Cape Town: David Philip Publishers; 2000:32–47 at
47.
On the other hand, it has been maintained that only
compensation and reparations will heal the injustices of the past (e.g.,
continued compensation for slave laborers from the German state
46 Bundeministerium der Finanzen. Bericht
über die Stiftung “Erinnerung, Verantwortung und
Zukunft”. Available from:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage17876/Bericht-ueber-die-Stiftung-Erinnerung-Verantwortung-und-Zukunft.pdf,
accessed January 24, 2005.
).
Trust-building measures need to ensure networking and communication
opportunities between groups for mutual learning. An open, transparent,
and, above all, honest approach in facing past injustices and wrong deeds
is an essential prerequisite for the success of such an endeavor. Truth
commissions in connection with trials of perpetrators can help redress the
balance in a meaningful and nonvengeful manner. For instance, the South
African Truth and Reconciliation Committee's recording of gross human
rights violations under Apartheid (1960–1994) to achieve
reconciliation is greatly admired internationally, if not always
nationally.47
James W, van de Vijer L.
Introduction. In: James W, van de Vijer L, eds. After the
TRC—Reflections on Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa.
Cape Town: David Philip Publishers; 2000:1–5.
Such
processes would invigorate trust between cultures and open the way for
meaningful intercultural dialogue.
Initiative 3: Ethics Review for Enforceable
International Agreements
Over the past decade, many countries established national ethics
committees.48
For a list of all European
committees, see National Ethics Committees. Available from:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/biosociety/bioethics/bioethics_ethics_en.htm,
accessed January 25, 2005.
In most cases, their task is twofold:
(a) to create a national forum for dialogue on ethical questions in the
life sciences and (b) to advise policy makers drafting new national
legislation.
49 For an example, see the
Danish Council of Ethics. Available from:
http://www.etiskraad.dk/sw293.asp, accessed January 25,
2005.
As a result, one would hope that new legislation is better
informed by ethical considerations. Similar bodies responsible for
dialogue on the international stage are the UNESCO's International
Bioethics Committee (IBC) and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee
(IGBC).
50 For more information, see
Bioethics. Available from:
http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1372&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html,
accessed January 25, 2005.
However, although the committees
foster dialogue on an international level, their main advisory tasks are
restricted to advising member states. In this regard, their
responsibilities are not analogous to national committees. If they were,
the IBC and the IGBC would inform binding international legislation, such
as the TRIPS agreement of the WTO. This is not the case, but in order to
move the agenda of global ethics forward, it ought to be. Binding
international agreements need an ethics review if conditions of human
flourishing ought to be ensured for all.
Ethics, in this sense, should not be used as a platform in itself. It
ought to be added to already existing discussions, for instance, about
science and technology policy, trade, and the environment. The complex
relationships in such areas require a common terminology to be developed
and used. To add ethics to such discussions would automatically foster
dialogue, thereby procuring the first condition for realizing global
ethics, namely, the agreement on fundamental conditions for human
flourishing.
Is it not paradoxical to ask for an ethics review of international
agreements before agreement on the fundamental conditions for human
flourishing has been achieved? Yes and no. Yes, from a rigidly analytical
point of view, where one aims for maximum consistency of one's system
of thought. No, if one accedes that real-life progress is often made in
little steps with the overall goal in mind (e.g., the first attempts at
anesthetics were grisly in comparison to the status quo, but we are glad
somebody started on this road).51
It would
take a separate paper to outline how an ethics review prior to binding
international guidelines would look.
