"cosmopolitan individualism"
Link; not an endorsement.
See page 5 et seq:
Quote:
B. The Shift toward Cosmopolitan Individualism
A combination of ideological, strategic, and political forces have driven the shift from communalism to individualism in the regulation of wartime behavior. It would be impossible to show which of these forces was most influential, either independently or in connection with a particular issue. Sometimes, military regulations that began as strategic self-interest were later incorporated into the law; at other times, legal norms shaped moral sensibilities, which were then translated into strategic and tactical conduct. These driving forces have been most influential over liberal democracies, and much of the analysis below thus focuses inevitably on the norms that govern — or purport to govern — liberal democracies. ....
Regards
Mike
Cosmopolitan Individualism
Many thanks. Its from Harvard, but I can live with it...:D
Wars of Third Party Revenge
Here is my section on WoTPR. It is still very crude.
Quote:
Wars of Third Party Revenge are conflicts whose motivation is predicated on a perceived injustice against an individual or group with whom the warring group has some affiliation. When these wars are conducted by a political state and there is no mutual defense treaty they tend to be classified as humanitarian interventions. Not all humanitarian interventions are motivated by revenge. There has to be a perceived injustice. An early example of a WoTPR was the attacks by the British against the Duke of Savoy in response to the massacre of the Vaudois in the mid 1650’s. In this case the massacre was the injustice and the affiliation was religious; the Vaudois were Protestant.
The impulse for Third Party Revenge acts on the individual and can cause people to take action independent of an actual political interest. This can be observed today in calls for jihad against infidel invaders. The perceived injustice is a territorial infraction and the common affiliation is religion. Individuals join the fight without leadership from within their group. In Syria it is not uncommon for foreign fighters to enter the country in order to protect members of their religion.
Much like the perceived injustice the nature of the affiliation required to activate Third Party Revenge is culturally specific and can change over time. For example, in the West “[t]he concept of people deserving protection evolved: from confessional co-religionists, to all fellow Christians, to all human beings.” It is not unconceivable that this list will continue to expand to “all living beings” as environmental activists and animal rights groups feel compelled to act to protect any living organism.
Not all conflict can be associated with a group need. Wars are often initiated by political leaders for strictly political or personal reasons. If war is a natural activity for humans where a group’s needs is threatened, then wars for reasons other than group needs can be termed artificial. These are wars where the leader initiates the conflict for a personal motivation. There is sufficient information available on when and why leaders take their countries to war so no further examination of this topic is made here.
Rings within rings (or is that wheels within wheels?)
The Hegelian in me wants to see thesis-antithesis pairs in the ring of values in your chart. Just as a case can be made that the middle ring sets anxiety reducing and anxiety free in opposition, in some cases values in the inner ring seem to be opposed to each other, but this does not carry through in any complete way. Can you explain the asymmetry of the values in the inner ring; as a minimum, why the numbers of values that are apprently subordinated to the two middle ring categories are not equal to each other? Or am I just attributing more to the visualization than it is meant to convey?
Schwartz' Universal Values
WM,
The circular design of the inner "ring" or pie comes from Shalom Schwartz Universal Human Values Theory (Are there Universal in the Structure and Content of Human Values). The values are set up opposing based on his surveys. He laid out responses to his surveys in a two dimensional form and the result was that value pie.
It is not as much philosophical theory as it is psychological fact (or at least as much fact as you can have with psychology). He has been working on this theory since 1989 and it is pretty robust.