Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 16048072

Why do they hate us, thick and thin?

Abstract

Immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, and a plane over Pennsylvania, many in the West, but particularly the United States of America, felt urgently the pain of the question 'Why do they hate us?' in relation both to those who directly perpetrated those dreadful events and to those who sympathised with their perpetrators. In this paper, I will offer an account of some of the conceptual issues at stake in addressing seriously such a question as an opportunity for self-examination. I will argue that questions of this kind are the very warp and weft of international relations at their most serious levels and that the often glib demonisation of 'them' who hate us serves us badly in coming to terms with the problems the West faces in its relations with the Muslim world. I use this most pressing of international relations issues as a test of the prospects of Utilitarianism as a viable 'ethics of international relations' arguing that its notions of the good and its resources for criticism of desires and preferences are a cause for scandal in our inter-cultural negotiations with other traditions of civilization, particularly the Muslim civilization. In many ways, rather than being part of the solution, Utilitarianism is part of the problem.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John G Quilter. 2005. Why do they hate us, thick and thin?. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-005-3982-z

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Models of distributive justice.

Philosophical disagreement about justice rages over at least two questions. The most immediate is a substantial question, concerning the conditions under which particular distributive arrangements can be said to be just or unjust. The second, deeper, question concerns the nature of justice itself. What is justice? Here we can distinguish three views. First, justice as mutual advantage sees justice as essentially a matter of the outcome of a bargain. There are times when two parties can both be better off by making some sort of agreement. Justice, on this view, concerns the distribution of the benefits and burdens of the agreement. Second, justice as reciprocity takes a different approach, looking not at bargaining but at the idea of a fair return or just price, attempting to capture the idea of justice as equal exchange. Finally justice as impartiality sees justice as 'taking the other person's point of view' asking 'how would you like it if it happened to you?' Each model has significantly different consequences for the question of when issues of justice arise and how they should be settled. It is interesting to consider whether any of these models of justice could regulate behaviour between non-human animals.

Ethical Theory↗

Ethical analysis of HPV vaccine policy options.

Vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV) may soon be licensed. In contrast to most vaccine-preventable diseases, which are transmitted by air or casual contact, HPV is primarily transmitted by sexual contact. An analysis that applies ethical theories, such as utilitarianism, rule of double effect, and principlism, is needed for policy considerations. These analyses reveal that HPV vaccination can be recommended universally, including at ages 11-12 years. However, given concerns for autonomy, justice, as not all persons are at risk, and non-maleficence, HPV vaccine should not be mandated for school entry. Economic justice indicates a need to provide vaccination for the disadvantaged.

Ethical Theory↗

[Professional responsibility: maximal, minimal, excellence and veracity].

Professional responsibility provides the groundwork for medicine since the existence of the Hippocratic Oath. Physicians must be prepared to justify their decisions and actions, based on scientific issues but also considering the underlying professional responsibilities. Ethical theories form a major part of such justification. A number of competing ethical theories may be identified. The maximal, minimal and excellence ethical theories agree with our experience with moral uncertainties. But veracity ethics is a new form of answering moral questions. Clinical situations are unavoidably conflictive. Lucid understanding of the necessary character of these conflicts leads to self-recognition and the itinerary of veracity ethics runs from misunderstanding to recognition. The self-awareness that veracity offers to physicians is difficult and painful due to the narcissistic humiliation that it inflicts on them.

Ethical Theory↗