Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T22:19:55.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Brief Response to Michael Ignatieff

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2012

Extract

In his elegant essay on the tension between a singular global ethic and global ethics in the plural, Michael Ignatieff invites us to “think harder about the conflicts of principle between them.” He is certainly right that harder thinking is needed: advocates of both versions of a global ethic sometimes seem locked into mutual self-righteousness. What we might call singular, or universal, ethicists often accuse pluralists of parochial atavism, while the partisans of plural, usually national, ethics think that the universalists are naive at best, arrogant at worst. Both are utterly convinced that they are right.

Type
Symposium: In Search of a Global Ethic
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 See Michael Ignatieff, “Reimagining a Global Ethic,” in this issue.

2 Berlin, Isaiah, “The First and the Last,” New York Review of Books XLV, no. 8 (May 14, 1998), pp. 5360Google Scholar.

3 Quoted in Smith, Michael Joseph, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1987), pp. 137–38Google Scholar.

4 Lilla, Mark, Dworkin, Ronald, and Silvers, Robert B., eds., The Legacy of Isaiah Berlin (New York: New York Review Books, 2001), pp. 73105Google Scholar.