115
outside of organized parties, mass media, voluntary organizations, etc.” (Finlayson
2005). The lifeworld is gradually and constantly changing” and “is the medium of
the symbolic and cultural reproduction of society”. Our systems of money and
power are predatory on our lifeworld and “cut deep channels into the surface of
social life” where “agents fall naturally into pre-established patterns of instrumental
behavior” (Finlayson 2005). They are “guided by their role into patterns of action in
pursuit of financial aims” (Finlayson 2005). And Habermas warned that “systems of
money and power steer agents towards ends that are not related to understanding or
consensus” (Finlayson 2005).
In “Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics,” Rawls explored whether a procedure was available to adjudicate and prioritize competing interests (Rawls 1951).
He believed that a judge should be “intelligent, well informed, have adequate time
to make his decision, be sane, as opposed to suffering from mental illness, and not
have personal interests in the case” (Rawls 1951). And Amartya Sen believes that
open impartiality and critical scrutiny are central features of “the general framework
of ethical and political evaluation” (Sen 2009). Unfortunately, these do not provide
much guidance on a clear and consistent methodology for ethical engagement,
something that could be put into practice in law and policy. But perhaps the reason
why a mechanistic approach is largely absent for ethical engagement is because a
mechanistic approach is not applicable, or appropriate.
3 Is State Sovereignty Sustainable?
Human rights are concerned with “the whole of humanity (universorum), united in
Earthly society and distributed in national groups” (Tutu 1999). Therefore, violations of human rights are violations to human harmony, to society-building, to stability, security, and governance—to life, and the foundations of life, itself. They
harm present and future opportunity, present and future generations, as well as other
species, individuals, and states. They also target and prioritize harm to those who
often need the most protection: vulnerable peoples, such as women, children,
minorities, indigenous peoples, and refugees, and in the case of the environment,
vulnerable species and habitats. Harm to humanity, harm to ourselves and our communal whole—which includes harming the foundations of life—gives insight into
who we are. It shows what we are capable of, and through the reasons we give in
defense of harm, our priorities, our values, and where our circles of care end.
3.1 The Particular Power of the State in Our
Societal Relationships
States are the power-holders in structuring society, at all levels, local to global.
The decision-makers within a state create the structures and laws that govern all
actors within a society, within and among nations: what air we breathe, what water
State Global Responsibility for Environmental Crises: The Ethical and Legal…
outside of organized parties, mass media, voluntary organizations, etc.” (Finlayson
2005). The lifeworld is gradually and constantly changing” and “is the medium of
the symbolic and cultural reproduction of society”. Our systems of money and
power are predatory on our lifeworld and “cut deep channels into the surface of
social life” where “agents fall naturally into pre-established patterns of instrumental
behavior” (Finlayson 2005). They are “guided by their role into patterns of action in
pursuit of financial aims” (Finlayson 2005). And Habermas warned that “systems of
money and power steer agents towards ends that are not related to understanding or
consensus” (Finlayson 2005).
In “Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics,” Rawls explored whether a procedure was available to adjudicate and prioritize competing interests (Rawls 1951).
He believed that a judge should be “intelligent, well informed, have adequate time
to make his decision, be sane, as opposed to suffering from mental illness, and not
have personal interests in the case” (Rawls 1951). And Amartya Sen believes that
open impartiality and critical scrutiny are central features of “the general framework
of ethical and political evaluation” (Sen 2009). Unfortunately, these do not provide
much guidance on a clear and consistent methodology for ethical engagement,
something that could be put into practice in law and policy. But perhaps the reason
why a mechanistic approach is largely absent for ethical engagement is because a
mechanistic approach is not applicable, or appropriate.
3 Is State Sovereignty Sustainable?
Human rights are concerned with “the whole of humanity (universorum), united in
Earthly society and distributed in national groups” (Tutu 1999). Therefore, violations of human rights are violations to human harmony, to society-building, to stability, security, and governance—to life, and the foundations of life, itself. They
harm present and future opportunity, present and future generations, as well as other
species, individuals, and states. They also target and prioritize harm to those who
often need the most protection: vulnerable peoples, such as women, children,
minorities, indigenous peoples, and refugees, and in the case of the environment,
vulnerable species and habitats. Harm to humanity, harm to ourselves and our communal whole—which includes harming the foundations of life—gives insight into
who we are. It shows what we are capable of, and through the reasons we give in
defense of harm, our priorities, our values, and where our circles of care end.
3.1 The Particular Power of the State in Our
Societal Relationships
States are the power-holders in structuring society, at all levels, local to global.
The decision-makers within a state create the structures and laws that govern all
actors within a society, within and among nations: what air we breathe, what water
State Global Responsibility for Environmental Crises: The Ethical and Legal…