summary of the entire book, Sintesi del corso di Etica

Scarica summary of the entire book e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Etica solo su Docsity! Chapter 1 – the problem 1. Introduction In recent times the chance of a global government became an increasingly considerable option. The issues it is supposed to face and solve are several and complex. First of all, the aim is to guarantee peace in the world. Recently, others problems like global warning, crimes against humanity, corruption and global justice have been added. There are three approaches to this situation. 1. world federation: Tännsjö will use ‘federation’ in a specific sense but there are many different uses. It consists of a world government. 2. anarchic system: each nation-state is reformed so that they are able to cooperate between them and handle global problems. Kant and Bentham sustain this thesis, even if differently. Kant sustained the idea of single nations that, voluntarily, would agree together in order to assure peace or solve contradictions. 3. hybrid between the first two options: some decisions are taken individually by the nations, some together with all the others. Tännsjö’s thesis: refuse of all the three theories. The first two are utopian, the third one is unstable. We need a global government and it has to be democratic. Without democracy, a global government is not possible. Democracy is necessary to solve global problems and to set realistic goals. He will prove that, unlikely what Kant sustained, there’s no reason to fear democracy on a global level and to not fear it on a national level. 2. The structure of the argument Chapter 2-4: he argues global problems and how to solve them. The conclusion will be that without a global government any solution is possible. The most hard stance to defend is the necessity of a global government. It has to be understood considering the problems that are analysed in this book. Chapter 5: a global government it’s sufficient and necessary. What form does it have to assume? Democratic. There will be a discussion about different forms of democracy and he will argue for a populist democracy. Chapter 6: how to initiate a global democratic government. Fundamental assumption: there’s only one super power in the world, the USA. Contrarily to what has been sustained, this a favourable condition for the establishment of a global government. Chapter 7: is a global democracy desirable? Reasons for the no answer: there’s no a global population with a shared culture , values, etc.; global democracy could develop into a tyranny where the strongest nations dominate the weaker ones. The conclusion will be that a global democracy is, despite all the evaluated positions, desirable. Chapter 8: re-evaluation of this book’s contributions. Chapter 2 – the argument arising from peace 1. the main arguments The central idea is that a global government is the only way to guarantee peace globally. Tännsjö argues that, as socialism in each country would promote global justice, democracy would contribute to global peace. Nevertheless, we should not wait for socialism to establish in each nation. We need to act immediately. Some urge problems can be only solved globally and in order to do so we must establish a global democracy. 2. the argument arising from peace Analogy with how peace has been guaranteed between nation-states. Tännsjö argues that is not desirable nor functional to establish a world government through violence/force. He sustains an optimist view according to which is possible to establish a world government without using force. We should take advantage of the US being the superpower of the globe. 3. can we have peace without global democracy? Kant and Bentham Kant: peace without a world government. How? 1. establishment of world governments 2. establishment of international law to regulate conflicts within nations Through these steps we can guarantee perpetual peace. To obtain it globally it is necessary to create a league of republican nations without violating the sovereignty of each one. Only a league, not a world republic, would keep peace with one another. With a republican constitutions peace will be assured because in this system the citizen is the subject of the state, thus before declaring war he/she will evaluate carefully the risks and consequences of such action. However, Kant is not much optimistic about the long erm establishment and effects of a nation league. Bentham is more optimistic on global peace. His plan has two steps: 1. the cut and fixation of the force of nations in Europe 2. the vanishing of dependencies between states 3. congress/diet with an exponent of every country both Bentham and Kant’s arguments are speculative. What about today? Looking at data it seems that in the last decades wars, conflicts, genocides and so one have been reduced (see p.17). Tännsjö argues that o see the reasons of this improvement we must consider three factors: - abolition of colonialism - establishment of democracy - born of UN (league of nations) 4. the abolition of the colonial system According to Bentham, colonialism has to be abolished since the day it was established. Colonialism has been the reason for most of the conflicts In Kant and Bentham’s years. Today there re few colonies lefts but still conflicts are happening (specially around resources). There is a moment of peace in the US perspective in this moment, but we don’t have any guarantee that it will last. Thus, conflicts can born and deepen in the future. 5. democracy as a means to eternal peace - If there is the right of “not being robbed” and we’re able to prove that distributive inequality is the result of previous rights violation in this sense. - Locke proviso: whenever a person acquires something, in order to be legitimate, he has to leave enough and as much good resources for others. - Nozick: if the ownership of resources doesn’t many any wrong to the others but, instead, privatization and industrialization improves their lives even if they do not own anything, they don’t have any right to complain about the situation. We have a complex case for what regards native populations being exploited for their natural resources, without leaving anything for their own. From the point of view of all the theories previously analysed, the actual world distribution is unfair and injustice. How to solve this? 5. is global justice a flexible goal? The moral rights answer The actual unfair distribution is, according to this theory, the result of past rights’ violations. What is needed is a restitution: is it possible without a world government? - Free market option: to Tännsjö isn’t the right solution. Wealthiest countries have built their power on protectionism and it isn’t able to compensate the poorest nations for what they’ve lost during the years of exploiting, since from a moral point of view compensation is needed and not only a levelling of resources. Again, this demonstrates we need a global government. This perspective actually sustains that, if we could improve poorest ones’ lives through a world government, then we should go for it. What is important to attend to is the concept of minimal state (p.41). 6. Is global justice a feasible goal? The prioritarian answer Rawls’ principle: if wort off ones’ conditions can be improved it has to be done, no matter what is the cost for the ones that are better off. In “The law of people” he argues two principles of his theory of justice: - Contract between people in a nation - Representatives of nations agree to another contract on a global level Without a world government to Rawls is impossible to establish the difference principle, but he doesn’t want a world government to be settled. Rawls doesn’t argue for a world government agreeing with Kant on the risk of despotism. Tännsjö believes that a world government it is desirable for its own and not only for the aim of global equality. The consequences of the refusal of a world government are enormous in terms of justice. Thomas Pogge made an attempt to create a system where there’s justice without the establishment of a world government. Injustice can be attacked with the introduction of a global resources tax (GRT), whose money are going to be used for the compensation of the worst off ones. This theory is based on the Kantian and Rawlsian scepticism. Theoretically, it would work: but will countries accept to establish this system? It’s hard to believe. Pogge argues his solution from Rawls’ theory. His system is made to serve the poorest. The GRT funds have to be used in order to enhance the situation of the poorest people. What if the nations use these funds for self-interests? Pogges’ solution is to add more rules. Tännsjö doesn’t believe this would be the right solution. This system focuses too much on redistribution of resources and too little on power. Power relations need to be regulated to assure that redistribution is respected. Any attempt to assure global justice without implying a global government fails. 7. Is global justice a feasible goal? The utilitarian answer Since what matters us to maximize the well-being of everyone, they would agree to democratization and socialism. Tännsjö proposes a market socialist system different from the Sovietic one: David Schweickart “After capitalism”. - Means should be socialized (=Soviet) - Workers’ cooperatives should be able to use them (≠ Soviet) and produce for a market (= capitalism) This wouldn’t allow much productive expansion but for sure it will establish more egalitarian conditions. this system is thought to be applied on a national level, Schweickart doesn’t have a cosmopolitan perspective. He’s very optimistic: a socialist revolution will be faced by every nation and economic and social injustices will be deleted. Tännsjö says we have to remember that the market system that has been working better since today is the Chinese one, very different from this one. He thinks that by imposing a socialist model in each nation, global injustices will be deleted. Tännsjö believes that Schweickart’s predictions could be true but there are too many personal interests that will obstruct the assessment of socialism. Even if the internal injustices could be fought, the global ones would still remain. In terms of global justice, this approach isn’t able to maintain control and assure order. 8. world government and the road to global justice Since today, the focus of redistribution has been on the richer ones. According to many theorists (Pogge, Singer, Unger and Tännsjö agrees) the better off people have a heavy moral duty to give away their wealth to the worst off ones. But they won’t do it and, eve if they would do this, we don’t know what the consequences would be. There are systems like the one in Scandinavia that redistribute resources among the life cycle of each individual: this is not realistic on a global scale, meaning that redistribution of resources between individuals is not globally achievable. The main idea is to adopt global government to fight local distribution problems. What is crucial is a change in respect of relations of power, not just redistribution of resources: similar processes have started within some countries and capitalist interests moved elsewhere. p.52 another option. Chapter 4 – the environment Problems regarding the environment involve all the countries of the world. There is not a lonely country responsible for climate change. Faults and consequences are common. 2. global warming Global warming exists and it’s real according to the third assessment report of the IPCC (p.54). We must solve this problem immediately and on a global scale. The consequences are huge and impact all the countries. By becoming warmer, there will be much more tropical disasters affecting countries not prepared for this type of climate. Diseases, famine and starvation will increase especially in the poorest countries. Ho to face these risks? - Take them as real  Kyoto protocol was designed to reverse these happenings and slow the crisis. - Continue the emission of CO2 and pay the victims affected directly by its consequences. According to Tännsjö these two can go together. The question we need to ask is: are these solutions possible without a world government? 3. the CFCs example In the 70s the scientists were worried for the ozone layer and its damage. This would have caused spreading of cancer, and the entire world would have been affected by it. Once the fact was accepted, the resolution was proposed with the Montreal protocol in 1985. At the same time, the Kyoto protocol was stipulated and the US (with the actual president Bush) refused to take their responsibilities and accused other countries like China and India of negligence and scarce commitment. However, the truth is that these countries produce CO2 emissions below the average, while the Us produces more greenhouse emissions than any other nation in the world. Thus, Tännsjö argues that any exception for this country would be an injustice for the rest of the world. All the countries must cooperate and cut drastically CO2 emissions: Sweden is one of them. It could be argued that in the US example the consequences of not cutting CO2 emissions will be paid by US citizens too. However, to Tännsjö this is a tragedy of the commons: every citizen would prefer to live with a lower CO2 emission level, but the most desirable condition for them is to continue living with the same CO2 emission level of that moment. 4. how would a world government handle a global warming? The central idea is to have a compromise. To Tännsjö the most promising idea is to introduce an individual quota of CO2 emissions to sensibilize citizens but also reduce them. Anyway, being sovereign means being able to manage resources on a global scale and find solutions to this type of problem. There are many solutions, one could be providing aid/economic compensation to the environmental refugees or to distribute fairly them between nations In the world, without compensation. However, it is crucial that a not refusable global solution is found. 5. scarce natural resources – one example: oil As we know, we are running out of oil and it is becoming more and more expensive. An we find a substitute? To Tännsjö this is possible, but it requires time and economic resources. In the meantime, wars and struggles between nations on this resource will deepen and born. This is another aspect in favour of the formation of a global government. 6. scarce resources – one example: water In 1990s the debate around democracy started to focus on the concept of deliberative democracy. In this sense, democracy is the aggregation of preferences into collective and public decisions through the vote and representation. In this case, new media (internet) play a very important role since they’re supposed to create more debate and connect people. to Tännsjö they actually make the opposite, aggregating people that think the same, without creating any exchange. Nevertheless, media can be useful for a global government. The aspect debated is the fact that democracy is seen just as reaching collective decisions with a previous discourse, no matter how the decisions are taken. To Tännsjö this is not enough. The world government has to be aware of the willingness of the world. It has to reflect somehow the world population. 5. the case for the populist ideal of global democracy Tännsjö thinks about a global democracy in a populist sense. A populist system satisfies the two principles above (see 1. introduction). He states that: - Populist democracy is the only radical option that people would likely pursue - Populist democracy is the only radical option that would solve the problems we considered in a world government Since people are affected by collective decisions, it is important to find a way in which all interests can be aggregated in a way that guarantees equality and that considerate everyone. The decisions are thought to be in a way that are fair or at least not too unfair between individuals. Black’ theorem of the median voter proves that populism tend to economic equality. We need to consider another epistemic aspect. According to Condorcet’s theorem the aim of majority decision is to find the right decision. If decisions are taken impartially then they will be more right than not. But there’s an asymmetry. Our aim is to guarantee free and personal vote to each individual in order to reach a fair distribution. If people vote following the common good then we reach our goal. If people vote following personal aims and desires, then there is a problem. When the national parliament is elected we want it to guarantee no oppression of the minority towards the majority and we also want it to take fair decisions through a democratic process. Here the epistemic argument is applied. We could think about giving more votes when a particular decision affects one more: it is difficult to concretely decide how to balance this idea. Then the question becomes, how to educate the people so that they would actually vote for the common good? Redistribution between individuals is not desirable and feasible neither. What we should look for is solving global problems (that will also lead to improving poorest ones’ conditions). here we must rely on the epistemic democratic model of aggregation. It will assure that elites don’t have power over the masses. On the other side, there’s no guarantee that the interests of the minorities will be respected. 6. global political parties Nation-states could assume the shape of natural constituencies even if some would be too small for that. There could be parties not entirely global to represents their world vision (for example about environmental issues) but there’s no guarantee they will enter the parliament or be persuasive about their ideas. When global parties will born, traditional parties will compete with them in proposing representatives. Tännsjö argues that global parties will gain more support. Here there’s still space for the instalment of aggregation model: when measures to solve global problems will be applied, the costs for citizens will be many, thus is important that they are equally distributed. 7. is there a case for elitism? Would Schumpeter version works as well? It is not a desirable version of democracy. It’s true that by giving the chance to the people of electing and getting rid of representatives there could be many changes not always for the better. However, by electing representatives, there’s a political participation of the elected, that there wouldn’t be with an elite deciding for the people. Schumpeter’s version isn’t desirable to people. it isn’t able to take care of global problems and it doesn’t involve the global population in the democratic process. The populist model is not utopian. Is realistic. Its effectiveness depends on the political culture and the electoral system of the country (p.86 for examples). In many countries, depending on these factors, the model doesn’t work. But there are also opposite examples such as Spain, Switzerland or Finland. 8. should a populist democracy be tempered with a system of judicial review? Democracy has to be attenuated through judicial review. Tännsjö does not deny that elitist democracy has helped in some cases minorities oppressed. But also a help from the above is needed. Is democracy the problem then? It doesn’t seem plausible. Wrong measures aren’t such for the way they are theorized. Therefore, a solution could be that a democratic system (especially in a global one) receive help from the above to avoid negative consequences: judicial review. The highest global court of law could asses if the world government’s acts are legitimate according to justice principles. Tännsjö disagrees. This global court of law could either help the wort off ones or not. This is not true for all of the cases, for example in USA it has been useful. But there are not much advantages of adopting this system on a global scale. Chapter 6 – a road map to global democracy 1. introduction Is a global government a realistic aim? According to Tännsjö, only if it shapes like a populist democracy. However, this system is even more realist now thanks to the tension to globalization. To Tännsjö, what many people see as an obstacle, the superpower of the United States, is, on the contrary, the crucial factor for this aim. 2. cosmopolitanism This concept has been conceived in many different ways. Tännsjö uses it in a institutional sense: a cosmopolitan is a citizen of the world. Others, like Brian Barry, sees it firstly as a moral concept to which, incidentally, politics is linked after. To Tännsjö the rationale behind cosmopolitism is made of individualism, equality and universality. But is this rationale (and cosmopolitanism) possible? 3. is cosmopolitanism a viable ideal? It’s clear that the global citizenship exists from a legalistic point of view. (see p.94 for examples) If we see global citizenship from a political perspective, we could see that political decisions taken by international organizations actually affect all the world. But also decision taken by superpowers like USA can have the same effects. In today’s world is clear that also a decision taken from a national parliament can deeply influence other countries since we are all strongly interconnected. The issue is then: can we democratize this concept or not? 4. representative democracy on a global level Tännsjö’s model is based on the existing institution of the UN. General assembly: House of Lords + House of Commons (Global People’s Assembly). GPA elected proportionally and everyone will have one vote. Elections must be controlled by UN representatives. All countries are encouraged to participate since if they don’t nobody is going to represent them. If every country participates, one third of the representative will be from India and China. This cannot be changed or according to Tännsjö the concept of populist democratic government will be lost. What about the nations that are too small to be represented? - Change the rules and let them having representation - Better solution Tännsjö: create special constituencies, not by following the actual borders, letting everyone to be represented  this could lead to a total re-evaluation of national divisions (perhaps, we could see Europe as an entity and not as a collection of countries) How should the world government be elected? The two Houses choose together the representatives (some must be permanent). During the history there have been many fails of reforming UN. Does this shows the weakness of a world government? Tännsjö argues that the GPA is the most important element to be set. In the future it should sovereign while the House of Lords has to be abolished. part of it and feel less detached from the majority ones (example of EU). What we need to share is the value of democracy first of all. 4. lack of economic integration Tännsjö does not think that this might be a good argument against global democracy. In the current world system there is no equal involvement in economy. It is fundamental to find ways to improve the economic world situation. The solution is not introducing taxes to the individuals and redistribute the earnings but to take action globally. The real answer is should be improving poor people lives and this can be guaranteed by a global government only. A global united government would automatically lead to justice. Tännsjö argues that socialism could help in this sense, by establishing it in singular nation-states global injustices could be fought easier. 5. shared sovereignty To establish a world government it is necessary to give up the national sovereignty. Tännsjö here argues that a hybrid solution (where sovereignty is shared between the world government and the nation states) is not possible nor desirable. The world parliament has to sovereign. Tännsjö is radical in this aspect. He shares the view of others that problems have to be faced differently according to their level, but there are problems that can be only solved on a global perspective. The idea that someone who is affected by a decision would probably take it it’s a too much abstract principle to refer to. Unless there are dispositions available to the central authority to decide where a decision has to be made (and who has to make it), Tännsjö thinks there will be a return to the state of nature between the states. There must be a central authority, a core that determine how and where to handle responsibilities. 6. totalitarian spectre Final objection: tyranny. A world government could impose a totalitarian threat to the entire globe? Isn’t better to choose Kant’s option of an association between independent states? What Kant has in mind talking about “federal union” is a voluntary cooperation between free states which is, according to Tännsjö, utopian. Kant does not see a world government as possible and desirable, his idea is developed from two objections: - A world government is condemned to a cruel despotism. Tännsjö argues that the military force of a world government should be only sufficient to maintain peace, order and fight terrorism, not much than this. There wouldn’t be need of military force of another country like the US. - Kant objects that the more the state is big, the less the laws will be effective: this can be true for some types of laws, but it is not true for the ones concerning the environment, peace and justice. Furthermore, Tännsjö argues it is impossible to state which questions the government can deal with and which not. Therefore, does this mean that we are completely dependent from the decisions of the world parliament? We have to admit there is the risk but any political system is infallible. Tännsjö in sceptical of a juridical review of the choices made by the world parliament. However, this option can be considered in the case global democracy has been established and some nations have the veto to oppose the world parliament’s decisions. According to Tännsjö, a world democracy won’t eliminate all the differences and features of each country. On the contrary, if the trans-national organizations wouldn’t be able to bribe the local ones, there will be much more freedom and self-expression. A new feeling, more open, towards migrants will born, and people will travel not to escape the world government, but to find the local reality that fits them the most. Chapter 8 – conclusion We have seen there are many global problems. These concern everyone on the globe. How to solve them? There are different perspectives. - National democracy and peaceful cooperation between states. Once all the states are democratized wars will end. Once the states gain economic equality they will make a deal to not waste resources. Is this option realistic? Tännsjö has objected it in the previous chapter. Some think in a globalized world there is no alternative to global democracy (p.133). - Hybrid solution: problems handled at their level and dealing between countries. This is utopian: there will be different views and ways of responding to problems until all the states give up their sovereignty for a global one. Tännsjö thinks that global democracy has started this path but two others elements are needed: democratisation of the UN and the military submission of the singular nations to the UN. Other claims Tännsjö has made in the book: - The existence of one superpower is a favourable condition for the establishment of a global government. The final step would be the military submission of the US towards the UN. - Global democracy is desirable - Against the objection that a world government would be controlled by the superpower: the world is now controlled anyway by the US. - Against the objection that there is a lack of cultural and ethnic community: it is not desirable on a national and global level neither. To fight global injustices there should be made laws that empower poor people around the world, not through redistribution of wealth. - Against the objection of tyranny: we have no guarantee that the opposite will happen. - Action is needed: people who already feel like world citizens must initiate.