Answer To: POLC37 Global Justice Take Home Final Exam Due Date: You will have exactly one week to compose three...
Dr. Vidhya answered on Dec 14 2021
POLC37 FINAL TAKE HOME EXAM
Table of Contents
Question One 3
Question Two 5
Question Four 7
References 10
Question One
Kant and Schmitt both stand on two distinctive sides when it comes to political liberalism as well as moral universalism applied to the general wellbeing of people ruled through democracy. Kant interprets the term universalism as something that has agreeable principles; it is the set of rules that everyone understand and commits to follow (Kant & Nisbet, 1991). Thus, universalism is more such as common ethical obligation, which applies to all whether it is for the ruler or for those who are ruled.
From this point onwards, he takes up the concept of justice; when rulers and ruled both have same governing principles, the political ideologies remain balanced and well in order. This is not like centralization of power, which makes the ruler as dictator. Instead, it is the distribution of power into worthy hands and they are definitely more than one. Consensus is the key to achieve the idealized form of justice through helping people realize that they are morally bound to follow the rules made for their own wellbeing.
However, in his political writings, Kant also agrees to the circumstantial varieties and the ways, in which they can be effective in addressing the concept of legal obligation for the government of the state. In fact, every form of action—whether it is universal in nature or not—is driven from the abstract of principles, which are commonly acceptable, but they do not apply to all conditions (Kant & Nisbet, 1991). Thus, concept of justice for the state as well as for the common people should be written in such a way that it should be capacitive enough to cover all conditions and concerns at universal level.
As per the Kantian principles of moral universalism, some relevant examples can be framed. It is extremely difficult to define a similar set of morality and ethics rules for every country in the world because each country, religion and community has its own set of likes and dislikes, rules, preferences and understanding, among other things. As a result, it is extremely difficult for an organisation to form a similar set of rules that can be applied in every country in the world.
The decision to establish moral principles varies depending on where an organisation does business (Hidalgo, 2013). There are numerous examples of moral universalism in action around the world. Equality in the workplace, regardless of gender, is the most common example of moral universalism. This is the most common example of moral universalism, in which universal morals and ethics are applied without hesitation in all countries.
Universalism is founded on the idea of applying a "logical test" to any moral issue. The nature of this test varies significantly across various Universalist factions (Kant & Nisbet, 1991). According to utilitarianism, the right logical test is, “Does my activity provide the greatest amount of good for the largest number of people?” If the answer were yes, a utilitarian would say that the activity is morally correct.
Moral universalism through human rights has become increasingly popular in recent years. The Geneva Conventions (which prescribe fair treatment of detainees of war) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (issued by the United Nations in 1948) are based on the concept of moral universalism. Concisely, all humans have unique rights and it is always unethical to deny those rights (Schmidt, 2011).
Schmitt, on the other hand, opposes the ideal of universalism and rather, he is against the political liberalism especially in modern context when democratic values are established through different entities of ruling. He essentially includes the concept of sovereign dictator, an individual leadership model, through which visions of novelty and change are structured positively (Kant & Nisbet, 1991).
When it comes to democracy, for example, there are multiple political pressure groups, which prefer influencing the government so that their personal interests are satisfied. This process affects the course of establishing the ideal form of justice in society because the governments are forced to take decisions, which are good for a particular set of political pressure groups.
Thus, centralization of power and authority to rule simply gives doubts, fears and weakly addressed concerns of the common people; they do not trust a government—and the democratic process too, through which they have chosen it. In order to ensure that the right amount of trust is placed in government, autonomous rule is a way out from all these political issues (Hidalgo, 2013).
An example of the above Schmitt gives as the sovereign ruler who has the authority to make rules of his choice (Kant & Nisbet, 1991). This ruler can turn down traditional setup of legal structure and make his own, based on the practical needs of people and nation. This may appear as opposing view to Kant in terms of keeping everyone in system as obliged to law.
However, at the same time, the rationale of this ideology, as per Schmitt, is to make sure that root level changes/transformations...