時 間：2010年01月08日 晚上六點～九點半
地 點：東吳大學外雙溪校區第二教研大樓十樓
傅正研討室（D1002教室）
報告人：鄒宗翰（人權學程碩士班）
內 容：Thomas W. Pogge, “World poverty and human rights: cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms” 2008 第五章 p.124~151
Chapter 5 the Bounds of Nationalism
Introduction
1. Nationalism—sentiments, ideologies, and social movements→ commitments to a nation; a potential self-sustaining community of persons bound together by a shared history and culture (the author’s view). Revisionist instances of nationalism-- sentiments, ideologies, and social movements→ gain power, political autonomy, and territory for a nation.
2. Most citizens of the affluent countries→ nationalists; revisionists→ extreme ones. (conservative nationalism)
3. Conservative nationalism as normative positions (critical examination)→unjustifiable extremes →moderation of it
4. Universalistic nationalism (particularistic one not worth serious moral discussion)—all nations can be valuable communities and can, by realizing this potential, generate the same obligations and prerogatives for their member, when they are similarly placed in the relevant respects. –common nationalism and lofty nationalism (patriotism and priority for compatriots)
5. The character of states—the scope and strength of its members’ obligations vis-à-vis compatriots and of their prerogative vis-à-vis foreigners.
6. The scope of the nationalists priorities (the weight of the asserted nationalist priorities)—there are firm limits to their application and hence contexts in which they cannot plausibly be invoked at all.
Common nationalism: priority for the interests of compatriots
1. illegal and immoral for a state official to favor her son’s firm in the application of government contracts← strong and exclusionary reasons /strong first-order reason；second-order reasons
2. Why should we understand the role of a state official as providing exclusionary reason? →level playing field, compliance redefined (team sport)
3. do well in a fair and open competition with others
4. contingent cultural pressure→ demoralization of the culture, Anglo-American persuasion
5. acceptable partiality is so limited when the basic justice of the larger playing field at stake
6. partiality by officials and citizens is certainly not alright when it seeks to shape a society’s ground rules or their administration so as to endanger the secure access by some to the objects of their human rights.
7. minimal constraint: UDHR as the outer bounds (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea)
8. trilemma: either (1) 必須要也能給這些被代理人相同沒有限制的特權, or (2) 禁止為了代表共同的利益來指派一個代表, for otherwise (3) 人民只能以指派一個代表來防止道德的限制。
9. why nationalist partiality is (thought to be) morally significant?
10. The unseen global poor
11. sucker exemption , the scope of family partiality v.s. the scope of nationalist partiality, the brutality of international scene, to ask them all to work together, the rise of the poor countries, who are inclined unjustly to slant the playing field for them?
12. the exceptional tolerance for nationalist partiality is not justified
Lofty nationalism: the justice-for-compatriots priority
1. common nationalism and lofty nationalism
2. there are contexts in which the priority asserted by lofty nationalism does not hold at all
3. negative duties have greater weight than positive duties
4. negative duty are not weakened by special relationships but are partly waived through consent under conditions of fair reciprocity
5. hierarchy of moral reasons: (1) negative duties not to wrong others；(2a) positive duties to protect one’s next of kin from wrongdoing, (2n) positive duties to protect one’s compatriots from wrongdoing, (2z) positive duties to protect unrelated foreigners from wrongdoing
6. (a ) in some case at least, just institutions that apply to oneself generate weighty negative duties of compliance; (b) in some cases at least, significant and continuing participants in an unjust institutional order have weighty negative duties to promote its reform and/or to protect its victims (the Nazi)
7. Lockean account: a social order cannot be justified to its present participants by appeal to the actual or hypothetical consent of their ancestors
8. The global poor’s extreme poverty is foreseeable, avoidable, and cannot be justified by anything they have done
9. problematic asymmetry of judgements
Explanatory nationalism: the deep significance of national borders
1. the modern state
2. condescending pity after offering a prize to every would-be autocrat or junta
3. ample resources can become an obstacle to growth→ reform needed
4. global institutional reforms could solve these problems through international laws or treaties
Conclusion
1. Acceptable common and lofty nationalism notwithstanding, much of the massive poverty and oppression in poor countries engages our negative duty to avoid harming others unduly.
2. 政府官員以及人民要去發掘國家的政策或法律是不是透過國際機構造成了貧窮，進而要求改變這些政策、法律或者是國際機構；也可以透過補償以及紓困的組織來幫助現在的受害者，不然對於上述所造成的傷害我們都有消極的責任。
3. 不作為之惡 (Nazi)
4. Honor negative duties!
沒有留言:
張貼留言