It’s been said that idealism is a matephysical theory—in regards to the nature of reality. A metaphysical realist will believe that reality is objective—that is, its existence and nature are independent in our own minds. In regards to canadian leadership, the most prominent political figure who shares these views is current liberal party leader, Michael Ignatieff. Through Ignatieff’s liberal interventionalist rational, he has used idealism and cosmopolitanism to create his own belief system as to how an individual should view and essentially take on the world. Through a deeper breakdown of Michael Cotey Morgan’s, “Michael Ignatieff: Idealism and the Challenge of the ‘Lesser Evils’,” it will be shown to what extent Michael Ignatieff’s views are alike or how they contrast from my own.
As stated prior, Michael Ignatieff is a pure liberal interventionalist, as he is a member of a small group of thinkers who support military action on the basis of left-leaning ideals, particularly the global defence of democracy and human rights. This rational twisted with cosmopolitanism is completely absurd—the idea of using left wing ideologies to back up right winged tactics is like sugar-coating something to make it seem like it’s something it’s not.
In reference to the current mission in Afghanistan, Ignatieff views the western attempts to uphold universal human rights abroad as interceding to protect the rights of those in danger, as he thinks that as a country we must have a standard of morality. Last time I checked, the war in afghanistan killed alot of innocent civilians and created even more social and political instability within the region. The fact of the matter is, war should never be justified as a peacekeeping mission to help others. War is carried out for the personal interests of a country, perhaps resources, but not for a “greater good”. In my opinion, an objective standard of morality does not exist in international affairs, and the attempt to have one is simply disingenuous.
Furthermore, Ignatieff goes on to say that the spread of democracy in the middle-eastern region is a consistently good idea. He argues that democracy reduces the likelihood of war both within and among states. It’s stated that war is better than being a by stander and not trying to help. Thus, resulting in the theory of “lesser evils”. But, if Ignatieff is really a humanitarian how can he support the invasion of other countries despite civilians being in harms way? In my opinion, for a country to invade another, get rid of it’s government to replace it with another is unjustifiable. Surely not all the civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq like the idea of one country invading another and imposing it’s views and social norms. So, it’s really hypocritical to impose theories such as “moral imagination”, where Ignatieff states we must feel how others do, when in reality he’s lacking major empathy for civilians views on being in the midst of war, or even their views on democracy. Thus, invading Afganistan was surely out of personal interests and did not promote humanitarianism, but rather imperialism.
Through analysing Michael Cotey Morgan’s, “Michael Ignatieff: Idealism and the Challenge of the ‘Lesser Evils’,” I came to realize I dislike just about all of Ignatieff’s views in regards to war, through his moral imagination ideal, and his thoughts of finding the lesser evil in regards to humanitarian efforts. Through a liberal interventionalist rational, Ignatieff has used idealism and cosmopolitanism to create his own belief system as to how an individual should view and essentially take on the world—and I’m not really liking it. Michael Ignatieff’s western attempts to uphold universal human rights amount to imperialism, not humanitarianism afterall.
No comments:
Post a Comment