Moral Argument At Home And Abroad: Frank Covey Jr Loyola Lectures In Political

In recent years, the question of whether or not to intervene in foreign countries has become increasingly controversial. There are strong moral arguments to be made both for and against interventionism. In this article, I will explore these arguments, drawing on the work of Frank Covey Jr., a leading scholar of international relations.

Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Frank M. Covey, Jr., Loyola Lectures in Political Analysis)

by Michael Walzer

4.8 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	981 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	118 pages
X-Ray for textbooks	:	Enabled

FREE

Defining Interventionism

Interventionism is a foreign policy doctrine that advocates for the use of military force or other forms of coercion to influence the internal affairs of another country. Interventionism can be justified on a variety of grounds, including the responsibility to protect innocent lives, the promotion of human rights, and the prevention of genocide.

Types of Interventionism

There are many different types of interventions that can be undertaken. Some interventions are relatively limited in scope, such as providing humanitarian aid or sending peacekeeping forces. Other interventions are more ambitious, such as regime change or nation-building.

Moral Arguments For Interventionism

There are a number of moral arguments that can be made in favor of interventionism. One argument is that we have a responsibility to protect innocent lives. When a government is unable or unwilling to protect its own citizens from violence or oppression, the international community may have a moral obligation to intervene.

Another argument for interventionism is that it can promote human rights. Intervention can help to stop human rights abuses, such as torture, arbitrary detention, and ethnic cleansing. It can also help to promote democracy and the rule of law.

Finally, interventionism can be justified on the grounds that it can prevent genocide. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic killing of a particular group of people. When a government is planning or carrying out genocide, the international community may have a moral obligation to intervene to stop it.

Moral Arguments Against Interventionism

There are also a number of moral arguments that can be made against interventionism. One argument is that it violates the principle of non-interference. The principle of non-interference states that states should not interfere in the internal affairs of other states. This principle is based on the belief that states are sovereign and should be free to manage their own affairs without outside interference.

Another argument against interventionism is that it can have unintended consequences. Intervention can destabilize a region, leading to violence and chaos. It can also create a dependency culture, where countries become reliant on outside assistance.

Finally, interventionism can be counterproductive. It can alienate the population of the target country, making it more difficult to achieve the desired outcome. It can also lead to a backlash against the intervening country, making it more difficult to achieve other foreign policy goals.

The question of whether or not to intervene in foreign countries is a complex one with no easy answers. There are strong moral arguments to be made both for and against interventionism. The decision of whether or not to intervene must be made on a case-by-case basis, weighing the potential benefits and risks involved.

Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Frank M. Covey, Jr., Loyola Lectures in Political Analysis)

by Michael Walzer

4.8 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	981 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	118 pages
X-Ray for textbooks	:	Enabled

FREE