Why cosmopolitan war is an ethics of fantasy?

Renaud-Philippe Garner
{"title":"Why cosmopolitan war is an ethics of fantasy?","authors":"Renaud-Philippe Garner","doi":"10.1163/21967415-BJA10028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article argues that Fabre’s cosmopolitan war is implausible because it ignores the psychological realities of war. Building on J.L. Mackie’s notion of an ‘ethics of fantasy’ – a morality reduced to lip-service and incapable of action-guiding – I argue that a view based on a flawed view of either human agency or the context in which it is exercised is doomed to practical irrelevance. In rejecting patriotism and advancing a highly individualistic view of war, Fabre relies upon a highly flawed view of human agency, ignoring the psychological mechanism of depersonalisation essential to large-scale cooperation and the practice of war.\nIn Part i, I offer an initial account of what an ‘ethics of fantasy’ is and offer one major reason why certain moralities fail as practical guidance. In Part ii, I contrast Fabre’s moral cosmopolitanism with ancient cosmopolitanism; I focus on her rejection of patriotism and other identity-based forms of partiality. In Part iii, I summarise key findings, mostly in social psychology, on how large-scale social cooperation is achieved. I highlight the central role of depersonalisation and its felicity conditions. In Part iv, I argue that Fabre’s view faces a dilemma. Either her cosmopolitanism is compatible with identity-based partiality, or it is not. If not, then she does not even have a view of war given that large-scale cooperation requires it. If her view is compatible, then she needs a functional replacement for patriotism. I conclude by showing that the alternatives fail to satisfy the felicity conditions of depersonalisation which war requires.","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article argues that Fabre’s cosmopolitan war is implausible because it ignores the psychological realities of war. Building on J.L. Mackie’s notion of an ‘ethics of fantasy’ – a morality reduced to lip-service and incapable of action-guiding – I argue that a view based on a flawed view of either human agency or the context in which it is exercised is doomed to practical irrelevance. In rejecting patriotism and advancing a highly individualistic view of war, Fabre relies upon a highly flawed view of human agency, ignoring the psychological mechanism of depersonalisation essential to large-scale cooperation and the practice of war. In Part i, I offer an initial account of what an ‘ethics of fantasy’ is and offer one major reason why certain moralities fail as practical guidance. In Part ii, I contrast Fabre’s moral cosmopolitanism with ancient cosmopolitanism; I focus on her rejection of patriotism and other identity-based forms of partiality. In Part iii, I summarise key findings, mostly in social psychology, on how large-scale social cooperation is achieved. I highlight the central role of depersonalisation and its felicity conditions. In Part iv, I argue that Fabre’s view faces a dilemma. Either her cosmopolitanism is compatible with identity-based partiality, or it is not. If not, then she does not even have a view of war given that large-scale cooperation requires it. If her view is compatible, then she needs a functional replacement for patriotism. I conclude by showing that the alternatives fail to satisfy the felicity conditions of depersonalisation which war requires.
为什么世界大战是一种幻想的伦理?
本文认为,法布尔的世界主义战争是不可信的,因为它忽略了战争的心理现实。基于J.L.麦基的“幻想伦理”概念——一种被简化为口头上的、无法指导行动的道德——我认为,基于对人类能动性或其所处环境的错误看法的观点,注定与实践无关。法布尔拒绝爱国主义,提倡一种高度个人主义的战争观,他依赖于一种有严重缺陷的人类能动性观点,忽视了大规模合作和战争实践所必需的去人格化的心理机制。在第一部分中,我提供了一个关于什么是“幻想伦理”的初步描述,并提供了为什么某些道德不能作为实践指导的一个主要原因。第二部分比较了法布尔的道德世界主义与古代世界主义;我关注的是她对爱国主义和其他基于身份的偏见的拒绝。在第三部分中,我总结了主要来自社会心理学的关于大规模社会合作是如何实现的主要发现。我强调去人格化的核心作用和它的幸福条件。在第四部分,我认为法布尔的观点面临着一个困境。她的世界主义要么与基于身份的偏袒相容,要么不相容。如果不是,那么她甚至没有战争的观点,因为大规模的合作需要战争。如果她的观点是一致的,那么她需要一个功能性的爱国主义替代品。我的结论是,其他选择都不能满足战争所需要的人格解体的幸福条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信