We began by saying we would address the issue of justice on an international scale. We said we understood (sorta) justice on a national, social contract level, but didn’t have the resources for making normative statements on the global level. Well, we still don’t have the resources for making those normative statements, but at least now we know what the issues are.
Justice is protecting national sovereignty on a non-military level: That is, one can make an argument that a polity needs to protect itself, and that part of the contract of individuals with their government is the guarantee by the government of this protection. The government is obliged to provide this protection. And this goes beyond, or transcends, the military level. A polity needs to protect its culture. If a nation is, say, very conservative, it would be a government responsibility to prevent other countries from coming in with offensive materials. A government is just in protecting the important interests of its citizens, and if those important interests are social, than protecting those social important interests is a just act on a contractual obligation level.
Justice is maximizing individual welfare: That is, one can make an argument that a government’s obligation to its citizens includes guaranteeing, as best it can, a decent quality of life. A government is obligated to relieve poverty, develop infrastructure, bring in investors who will help develop the country. The government of a developing nation that uses all the money it can get its hands on to build palaces for the rulers is not living up to this obligation. The government of a developing nation that seeks international economic partners, encourages sustainable development without harming the environment, etc., is living up to this obligation.
Justice is defending citizens on a military level: Individuals in a nation cannot defend themselves from attack by outside agencies. This is the job of the government. It would be just for a nation to build a strong defensive military, or seek support from strong military partners. It could also be just for a nation to build, and use, a strong offensive force. The US certainly does, despite any protestations to the contrary: make a list of the countries we’ve invaded since WWII, even if those invasions were “defensive.”
Justice is a government working to maintain its nation’s dignity on the international level: Since only a government can act on the international level, all the actions a government takes on that level can one way or another be tested for justness. If a government works to make its nation a recognized participant in world events, this would probably be just action, whereas if a government works to isolate its nation, this would probably not be living up to its obligation. It is easy to make an argument that in today’s technological, multinational corporate world, a nation must be part of the community of nations to participate in the benefits that derive therefrom.
Justice is protecting the citizens of your nation above the citizens of other nations: Since we have a social contract within our borders, and no social contract outside our borders, our governments only have contractual obligations to their own citizens. On the other hand, we could make claim that our governments have moral obligations to other citizens that also must be taken into consideration. That is, we don’t give up our ideas of right and wrong the minute we cross the border.
Justice is the application of a social contract on an international level: Since geography is accidental, national sovereignty, while valid as a political concept, is not the ultimate determinant of the worth of citizens. Individuals exist as human beings before they exist as citizens of a particular nation, and their human worth transcends their nationality. Creating an international social contract, i.e., a “federal” state of all nations comprising the individual nations, with transcendent laws at this federal/international level overriding local laws, allowing for a framework of individual rights protection within the context of differing societies, is a just action. In other words, a UN that worked, with actual power, is a reasonable goal of just action on the international level.
From these blocks, I could put together an argument that Iran is justified in putting itself forward as the leader of the Moslem world, requiring the international respect that comes with leadership, that this requires a nuclear capability, and that this is beneficial to its people on a social, economic and military level. From these blocks, I could also put together an argument that the US is justified in preemptively preventing its enemies from acquiring nuclear arms, because the protection of citizens within a nation is just. From these blocks, I could do all sorts of things.
But I don’t have to. You do.
Have fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment