Cheyney Ryan

The Dialogue of Global Ethics

The message of Michael Ignatieffs reflections on reimagining a global ethic is a comforting one for political philosophers. It is vital, he writes, for philosophers to keep doing what they have been doing: addressing the injustices of globalization from a perspective of strict impartiality that treats every human being as the object of equal moral concern. Philosophers should continue to elaborate this “one world” perspective against those partial perspectives arising from the claims of ones particular country or particular religious faith. But their aim should not be to replace the one with the other, but to prompt an ongoing critical dialogue in which more particularistic doctrines of country or faith are called to justify themselves before the one-world ethics impartial standards—thus prompting the kind of critical self-reflection that is essential to moral change. And in so doing, the one-world ethic cannot be uncritical of itself, for there are different ways of conceiving a global ethic, each of which must answer to the others.

Socialist Justice and the Right to the Labor Product

The inquiry into Marx’s critique of justice touches on fundamental issues in Marxist theory, among them the status of Marxist philosophy itself. The perils of reconstructing that critique are familiar enough: Marx’s comments on justice are few and scattered, they hardly constitute a “theory,” and filling them out invariably involves appealing to other, perhaps equally controversial, Marxist positions. But the risks promise reward, for such an account may demonstrate, or at least afford insight into, the uniqueness of the Marxian perspective and do so not merely by situating Marx in the terrain of previous philosophy and socialist theory. If the importance-or even existence-of a specifically Marxian philosophical viewpoint has yet to be demonstrated, it is logical to look for its expressions in the posture Marx takes towards traditional problems to see how far he stands from traditional solutions. Moreover, the critique of justice cannot make good the philosophic claims of Marxism without establishing its relevance to current political practice and the conceptions that inform that practice. It is.one thing to define the distinctive lines of a philosophical position, quite another to show why the position should be taken seriously. A successful rendering of the Marxian outlook must, I think, do both.

The Dilemma of Cosmopolitan Soldiering

The most famous essays by American writers on heroism, especially in military matters, inordinately deal with the demise of heroism — the threats to it, and to the attendant ‘martial virtues’, from the dominant social forces and ideals.1 Heroism, it seems, is something we are always in danger of losing, because we are always inclined to underestimate its importance. Hence the task of the philosopher is to remind us of that importance, to explain to us why the spectre of an un-heroic world should strike us as so impoverished, ethically, aesthetically and politically.

Emanuela Ceva’s Interactive Justice

ABSTRACT Emanuela Ceva’s Interactive Justice addresses the crucial need for dialogue between political philosophy and the field of conflict management. I raise two concerns. I ask how her procedures of interactive justice would cope with the Teri Schiavo case that she presents. Do they possess the type of generality justice seems to require, or are they necessarily particularistic, contingent, and opportunistic? I also question, here and more generally, framing matters in terms of value conflicts. Ceva’s aim is to supplement political liberalism. I suggest her project can be developed into a more critical perspective towards that view. Abbreviation ADR: alternate dispute resolution

The Hard Hand of War

The Napoleonic wars of the late 18th and early 19th centuries profoundly impacted thinking about war. They inspired the first peace movements, dedicated to the abolition of all war on the grounds that modern war was among other things indiscriminate in its killing. One response to this pacifist skepticism was renewed interest in constraining war, including interest in refining the so-called laws of war and their basis. The emergence of modern ‘total war’, with World War I and World War II, only increased this urgency. Some wars had always been fought indiscriminately. European imperialist wars against native peoples never distinguished soldiers and civilians in decimating whole populations. But this expressed the racism of those fighting, as by contrast 18th century wars between Europeans were measured affairs. Developments in war technology made killing civilians more likely, insofar as it was harder to discriminate in their use; a shift in wind could quickly transform a poison gas attack on soldiers into one on civilians. But the biggest

Who Should Teach and Learn

Who teaches determines what is taught about rape in war and genocide. What, then, qualifies one to teach about this subject? In addition, what considerations about students—their age or background, for instance—are imperative before, during, and after teaching them about rape in war and genocide? How, moreover, may the teacher’s and the student’s gender and experiences affect and problematize teaching and learning about the topic? This chapter shows that the gender of teachers and students matters significantly in thinking about who should teach and learn, but the need remains for both men and women to be in the roles of teacher and learner.

What Needs to Be Taught

Rape in war and genocide always involves particularities of place, time, context, and experience. No one can teach or learn about them all. Which histories and experiences, what places and contexts are the most important to consider, and how does one best make such decisions? This chapter concentrates not only on these questions but also on what motivates people—primarily but not exclusively men—to resort to such violence and on what the consequences turn out to be. The contributors concentrate on helping teachers and students to identify the most important causes of rape in war and genocide and what it takes to intervene effectively against them.

The Bread of Faithful Speech

For me, no better evidence exists for the beneficent smilings of fate than my landing at Boston University in the fall of 1970. For the philosophy department there was truly a remarkable group, and became more so as the years progressed. They were at once wise and generous, tolerant yet committed - such a rare combination that it now all seems like Brigadoon, something that appears all too briefly, and then recedes into the mist. At the center of it all, their chief assembler, was Marx Wartofsky, to whom I owe pretty much everything. When I landed there - and ‘landed’ is the right word, for I had been projected out of my previous institution - it was largely due to him, as it was largely through his machinations that I managed to finish my education without further interruption. With Alasdair Maclntyre, Marx supervised my thesis on philosophy of economics. What follows are further reflections on that topic, inspired by the developments of subsequent years. I hope that they will be received as the expressions of gratitude and love that they are.