An International Ethics of Evil?

Abstract

Ethical debates in international relations tend to rely either on the vocabulary of norms or the vocabulary of evil. In an effort to conceive of a richer international ethics, this article explores the possibility of combining the two. Since the vocabulary of norms is indispensable, the question is how to supplement it. The most prevalent conception of evil turns out to be a dangerous and inappropriate supplement, for it posits evil as absolutelynot-self, and as an attribute of foes to be eradicated. The second conception of evil highlights the connections between evil and self. When applied to the international context, this conception encourages self-critical public debates about present and past injustices, helping societies to confront and heal ethnic, racial, and other political wounds. Thus a rich international ethics is best woven out of the vocabulary of norms and the conception of evil as connected-to-self.

The social construction of terrorism: media, metaphors and policy implications

“…Importantly, one has to note here the impossibility of any kind of engagement or dialogue with terrorists if they are predicated as 'evil' 'devils' (Abdel-Nour 2004). As 'evil' cannot be reasoned with, negotiations and talks with terrorists such as Al Qaeda are considered absurd.…”

Beyond Tragedy: Hannah Arendt and Hans Morgenthau on Responsibility, Evil and Political Ethics

“…For his part Morgenthau failed to see that an emphasis on evil as an inescapable aspect of any political action magnifies the need for articulating general norms for judging wrongs because of the intrinsic subjectivity and indeterminacy of the vocabulary of evil. While observing that this vocabulary enables one to “capture tragic choices and paradoxes” more fully than through any rule‐based ethical approach, Farid Abdel‐Nour (2004: 428, 430)) points out that “evil is so completely dependent on how it is experienced, that it is difficult to determine whether such an experience in a particular case, and the consequent naming of something or somebody as evil, is warranted” (see also, Klusmeyer and Suhrke 2002). Because this type of rhetoric seems so much more expressive of our raw emotional reaction to egregious injustices and wrongs, it obtains an immediate “authenticity” without having to meet any requirement that tests our judgments against broader standards or involves demonstrating the justification for our conclusions to others.…”

“…Because this type of rhetoric seems so much more expressive of our raw emotional reaction to egregious injustices and wrongs, it obtains an immediate “authenticity” without having to meet any requirement that tests our judgments against broader standards or involves demonstrating the justification for our conclusions to others. By contrast, as Abdel‐Nour (2004: 430) observes, “norms, no matter how well or badly justified, call for a distinct step of application. The vocabulary of norms imposes a conceptual separation between the general norm and the particular case.…”

The nuclear taboo, Battlestar Galactica, and the real world: Illustrations from a science-fiction universe

“…‘Othering’, or the construction of an enemy as an essentially other being, as ‘beyond the pale’ and ‘evil’, is a common mechanism and has been dealt with extensively in the literature (e.g. Neumann, 1996; Abdel-Nour, 2004; Geis, 2006; Bukh, 2009). The destruction of the radical other is considered not only prudent but also morally imperative: mere defeat is not enough as an evil enemy is ‘an irrational, uncontrollable and highly destructive actor or force that can only be defeated by elimination’ (Geis and Wunderlich, 2014: 466).…”