No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
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
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 2012
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. 53–60Google 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. 73–105Google Scholar.