International Law

An article in the New York Times on the biological aspects of “morality” among primates and its sampling of moral philosophers at least brings to mind the continuing debate in IL of if there is such a thing as a universal morality or “norms” for humans and what these might be.  The tendency for some to reject this idea usually favors an “amoral” approach, or simply rule by whomever has power (though even that, ultimately, relies on some concept of morality… it seems to me to be an inescapable box). 

The debate on human nature is endless (and has been oft mentioned here), but it is worth again thinking if there really is at least something universal, and, as the article suggests, it is not really every “single” creature against every “single” other that is wired into our distant past.  If there is an inherent group connection, how far can this extend?  To family, to the large community, to a nation, to the world?  What are the limits on it?  Does there need to be an “other”, a human other, or can this other be inanimate, such as the forces of death or poverty or degradation to humans everywhere?

The dissing of “human rights” or other norms as entirely culturally or socially constructed (a view shared, oddly enough, but those on the so called post-modern hyper-front usually viewed as “left” but more so as a caricature and also by the “pragmatists”/formalists who tend to be centrist/right… perhaps the divide is more modern/post-modern than anything) is a common critique, but many scholars/humans/etc. still feel there is something common there, at least some common thread of humanity.  And examples to the contrary of this or that custom are often reductionist and do not take into account that of course there is variation (and various levels of control, power structures, views, etc.).  Examples of “other cultures” that do not “share out values” often select the worst examples, ignoring that such negative examples of our “morality” could be found in any culture.  Of course everyone from human rights activists to the Bush administration have made claims of the universality of X or Y principle.  The hard part is sorting through the mess to see what is common ground and what can be used constructively to make the world a better place.   

At least this articles shows the continuing exploration from all angles of what, if anything, is truly a basis for norms.  (…Of course the morality of chimps might be socially/power imposed too.  Viva la chimp revolution!)

And of course the research on primates and other animals has ethical implications; the more we learn of the cognitive and “moral” ability of animals, the more it might suggest we have some commonality and perhaps owe something to them.