MODULE CONTENT

Topic 1: Globalization and Pluralism: New Challenges to Ethics

Nominal Duration: 6 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. define globalization and explain its different dimensions;
2. enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of globalization;
3. evaluate the role of ethics in globalization; and
4. analyze the challenges of pluralism to ethics.

Introduction

Virtually, all aspects of modern life is affected and transformed by the forces of
globalization. News is shaped daily by issues concerning activities that go beyond the
confines of our domestic borders. Our homes are filled with products sourced from the world
over. We consume food coming from different countries. Even what we read, watch and
view originated from somewhere in the world. This means we are not isolated and we are
active participants in all these global activities.

We find ourselves in a period of time marked by an unprecedented transformation.

The fast and incessant social, cultural, economic, and technological changes we experience
makes our world more and more interconnected. Globalization’s dynamic power will
continue to alter the way we think about or understand people and things, as it reshapes our
lives, the system of our communication and the manner we relate. The many changes which
globalization provoked in every society and culture have resulted in the cross-border stream
of individuals, consumer goods, and information by reducing an indefinite number of
obstacles among nations.

1
Globalization: A Search for Definition

Globalization is not a single concept that can be defined with certainty. Different
interpretations of the term reflect different perspectives rooted in different positions, attitudes
and benefits derived from it. There is a long line of definition from academics, scholars and
theorists since globalization as a term first appeared in Webster’s dictionary in 1961. Here is
a brief survey of the definitions proposed by leading intellectuals and organizations over the
years:

Kenichi Ohmae (1992) defined it as “the onset of a borderless world”. Roland

Robertson (1992) referred to it as “the compression of the world and the intensification of
consciousness of the world as a whole”. Arjun Appadurai (1996) posited globalization as “a
‘world of things’ that have different speeds, axes, points of origin and termination, and varied
relationships to institutional structures in different regions, nations, or societies”. Robert Cox
(1999) outlined the “characteristics of the globalization trend to include the internationalizing
of production, the new international division of labor, new migratory movements from South
to North, the new competitive environment that accelerates these processes, and the
internationalizing of the state…making states into agencies of the globalizing world”. Fredric
Jameson (1996) defined it as “a cultural process, globalization names the explosion of a
plurality of mutually intersecting, individually syncretic, local differences; the emergence of
new, hitherto suppressed identities; and the expansion of a world-wide media and technology
culture with the promise of popular democratization. As an economic process, there is
assimilation or integration of markets, of labor, of nations”. Thomas Friedman (1999)
brought up the “inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree
never witnessed before - in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states
to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before, and in a way
that is also producing a powerful backlash from those brutalized or left behind by this new
system. Globalization means the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually every country
in the world”. In contrast, Martin Khor (1999) related globalization as “what people in the
Third World have for several centuries called colonization”. World Bank (2001) defined it as
“the growing integration of economies and societies around the world”. Robert Keohane
(2002) described it as “a trend of increasing transnational flows and increasingly thick
networks of interdependence”. International Monetary Fund (2002) interpreted it as “a
historical process, the result of human innovation and technological progress. It refers to the
increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial
flows”. Pascal Lamy (2006) referred to it as “a historical stage of accelerated expansion of
market capitalism, like the one experienced in the 19th century with the Industrial
Revolution. It is a fundamental transformation in societies because of the recent technological
revolution which has led to a recombining of the economic and social forces on a new
territorial dimension.” Nayef R.F. Al- Rodhan and Gérard Stoudmann (2006) defined it as “a
process that encompasses the causes, courses, and consequences of transnational and
transcultural integration of human and non- human activities.” Manfred Steger (2014) in a
more general and simplified terms put it as “the expansion and intensification of social
relations and consciousness across world-time and across world-space”.

The abundance of definition is clearly an indicator of varying opinions, discourses

and debates and no single definition can put an actual claim to it. This only shows that
globalization is indeed multifaceted, multidisciplinary and complex. It is also an evolutionary
and fluid process. Certainly, new definitions will be put forward and old definitions will be
revised to reflect the changing nature and context of social realities in the world today.

2
Globalization and its Dimensions

Manfred Steger (2005) contended globalization as matured ideology for “it not only
represents a set of political ideas and beliefs coherent enough to warrant the status of a new
ideology, but also constitutes the dominant ideology of our time against which all of its
challengers must define themselves”. For more than a decade, there has been an emerging
consensus and growing acceptance among academics and thought leaders that indeed it is a
valid and sound ideology to perceive and explain the world. And to discuss it, it is imperative
to divide the ideological landscape into three broad regions or dimensions: Economic,
Political, Cultural and Sociological Globalization.

Economic Globalization

Economic globalization refers to the mobility of people, capital, technology, goods

and services internationally. It is also about how integrated countries are in the global
economy and how different countries and regions become more economically interdependent
with one another. Economic globalization is also about globalization of production and trade
of goods, financial and capital markets, technology and communication, organizational
regimes and institutions, enterprises and corporations, and labor. In its economic sense, Joshi
(2009) understood globalization as the free movement of goods, capital, services, technology
and information. It is the increasing economic integration and interdependence of national,
regional, and local economies across the world through an intensification of cross-
border movement of goods, services, technologies and capital.

Over the past three decades, under the framework of General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) and World Trade Organization (WTO), economic globalization has been
expanding at a much faster pace. Since the 1980s, economic globalization has spread rapidly
through the expansion of capitalism and neo-liberalism. Countries have rapidly been cutting
down trade barriers and opening up their current accounts and capital accounts. This rapid
increase in pace has occurred mainly with advanced economies integrating with emerging
ones. They have done this by means of foreign direct investment and some cross-border
immigration. They have also reduced trade barriers. Free trade is the main driver of economic
globalization. Economic globalization has grown at an increased rate due to improvements in
the efficiency of long distance transportation, advances in telecommunication and
information systems, and by developments in science and technology.

In some regions of the world, countries group together to form preferential trade
agreements and economic blocs. Main goal of these regional economic organizations is to
promote and adhere to the free movement of capital, labor, goods and services. The North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) opened up the free movement of goods and
services, but not labor. This has the same arrangement for Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN). European Union is a common market, and therefore the most advanced in
terms of economic integration allowing free movement of all factors of production within its
internal borders.

Political Globalization

Central to any meaningful discussion of political globalization is the declining

importance of nation-states and the rise of other non-state actors in international politics. In
fact, some actors such as multinational and transnational corporations and large international

3
non-governmental organizations can challenge role of national governments and may even
pose threats to sovereignty of states. Consider this: gross revenues of some global companies
may exceed combined gross domestic product (GDP) of several small Sub-Saharan or Latin
American states, in most likelihood, countries where they operate and have branches.

Political globalization is primarily concerned with growth and expansion of global

political system and its institutions. The creation and continued existence of the United
Nations is a classic example of this. Valentine Moghadam (2005) outlined key trends towards
this expansion: multilateralism, emergence of transnational state apparatus and the emergence
of international non-governmental organizations that would provide oversight functions to
national governments. Political globalization has also been discussed in the context of
emancipatory possibilities, toward greater global democratization and the creation of a kind
of a global civic society by transnational advocacy networks.

Political globalization has also spurred debates about the primacy of nation-states in
international relations and about the notions of global governance. Hyper globalists argue that
globalization is eroding state boundaries and nation-states loose significance. However, this
is contested by nationalists and skeptics who argue that it is not pragmatic as supranational
organizations such as the UN do not have police powers and therefore limited to enforce
resolutions. They maintain that state actors remain supreme in international relations.

Cultural Globalization

James (2006) defined cultural globalization as the “transmission of ideas, meanings,

and values around the world in such a way as to extend and intensify social relations and
expansion of social relations is not merely observed on the material level for it also involves
the formation of shared norms and knowledge with which people associate their individual
and collective cultural identities”. Furthermore Steger and James (2010) pointed out cultural
globalization as harbinger of “increased interconnectedness among different populations and
cultures”. Watson (2016) argued that “as a result of the diffusion of commodities and ideas,
everyday life reflects a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”. Such
cultural globalization may lead to monoculturalism or the adoption of the culture of the
dominant group. This process is also understood as cultural imperialism wherein dominance
by a homogenized and westernized, consumerist culture tends to destroy and alienate cultural
identities of minority groups. The global influence of American products, businesses and
culture in other countries around the world has been referred to as Americanization.
Americanization has become more prevalent since the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991.
Greater Americanization became more widespread through high speed internet and smart
phone technology since 2008, with a large fraction of the new apps and hardware being
designed in Silicon Valley. American-based TV programs are re- broadcasted the world over
and Netflix shows are transmitted through the internet. Americanization is best represented
by iconic companies such McDonalds and Coca-Cola. Terms such as Coca-colonization and
McDonaldization have been coined to refer to the dominance of American products in foreign
countries, which some critics of globalization view as a threat to the cultural identity of these
nations.

Cultural globalization is clearly driven by advances in information technology,

wireless communications, electronic commerce, popular culture, and international travel and
migration. Though seen as a trend toward cultural homogeneity and standardization of human
experience, to some scholars, this appears to be an overstatement of the phenomenon.
According to Watson (2016), although homogenizing influences do exist, they are far from
creating anything akin to a single world culture. Another alternative perspective argues that
4
in reaction to the

5
process of cultural globalization, a “Clash of Civilizations” might appear. Samuel
Huntington (1993) emphasized the fact that while the world is becoming smaller and
interconnected, the interactions between peoples of different cultures enhance the civilization
consciousness that in turn invigorate differences. Indeed, rather than reaching a global
cultural community, the differences in culture sharpened by this very process of cultural
globalization will be a source of conflict. There is a whole gamut of conflicting claims and
opinions to a Clash of Civilization, however, there is general concurrence that cultural
globalization is an ambivalent process bringing an intense sense of local difference on one
hand and cultural imperialism, greater cultural homogeneity and uniformity of experience on
the other.

Sociological Globalization

Albrow and King (1990) defined globalization from the sociological perspective as,
all those processes by which the people of the world are incorporated into a single world
society. In his work, In The Consequences of Modernity, Giddens (1991) writes,
globalization can thus be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which
link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring
many miles away and vice versa. Robertson (1992), describes globalization as the
compression of the world and the intensification of the consciousness of the world as a
whole. Held, et al. (1999) in their work, In Global Transformations, state probably the most
widely-cited definition on globalization:

Although in its simplistic sense globalization refers to the widening,

deepening and speeding up of global interconnection, such a definition begs
further elaboration. ... Globalization can be on a continuum with the local,
national and regional. At one end of the continuum lie social and economic
relations and networks which are organized on a local and/or national basis;
at the other end lie social and economic relations and networks which
crystallize on the wider scale of regional and global interactions.
Globalization can refer to those spatial-temporal processes of change which
underpin a transformation in the organization of human affairs by linking
together and expanding human activity across regions and continents.
Without reference to such expansive spatial connections, there can be no
clear or coherent formulation of this term. ... A satisfactory definition of
globalization must capture each of these elements: extensity (stretching),
intensity, velocity and impact.

Larsson (2001), in his book, The Race to the Top: The Real Story of Globalization ,
stated that globalization is the process of world shrinkage, of distances getting shorter, things
moving closer. It pertains to the increasing ease with which somebody on one side of the
world can interact, to mutual benefit, with somebody on the other side of the world.

As the phenomenon of globalization continuously increases its speed of the exchange

or transfer of goods, services and capital across borders, it invites everybody to come
together, to connect and unite in a common interest or focus without regard to geography,
distance or language. As knowledge, world views, values, social practices, products, and
other components of culture convergence, people not only communicate but also collaborate.
Due to faster, further and deeper global integration, complex issues are bound to arise which
cannot be ignored. These pose new challenges and problems which are global in
nature. Global
6
challenges and problems demand global solutions. This requires new thinking, new ideas and
new solutions.

Globalization and Its Discontents

Many are critical and skeptical about the claimed benefits of globalization. One
among them is the Nobel Prize winner for Economics Joseph Stiglitz as articulated in his
controversial book “Globalization and Its Discontents (2002). He argued that globalization
must be reinforced further to reap potential full rewards and advocated providing “safety
nets” for people left out by the process. Some critics are more aggressive, rejecting it outright
and calling for countries to totally abandon the globalization project. Nevertheless, these are
just some of the big arguments against globalization and some of the moral dilemmas facing
us in our time:

Globalization and Income Inequality

Though globalization, particularly economic globalization, has its rewards, countries

derive unequal benefits from it, and as a result tends to widen the divide between the poor
countries of the “South” and the richer countries of the “North”. Countries deeply engaged in
globalization have reported widening income gaps as measured by their Gini coefficient
ratios. According to Asian Development Bank (ADB), before China implemented reform and
open- door policies in 1978, its income distribution pattern was characterized as
egalitarianism in all aspects. At this time, the Gini coefficient for rural – urban inequality
was only 0.16. As of 2012, the official Gini coefficient in China was 0.474, although that
number has been disputed by scholars who “suggest China’s inequality is actually far
greater.” A study published 2014 estimated that China’s Gini coefficient increased from 0.30
to 0.55 between 1980 and 2002. Income balance is worsening between rural areas of the inner
counties and the coastal regions. And according to Bank of England Governor Mark Carney,
globalization has been one of the main causes of the increase in inequality in many countries
in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These countries,
including the United States, Canada, and Argentina, have faced an increase in inequality by
between one-half to one-third between the 1970s and the late 1990s. Globalization has been
described as an "uneven process" in Africa. Some groups are integrated into international
economy while most are marginalized and therefore excluded from the rewards.

Globalization, Labor Conditions and the Environment

By being first and foremost concerned with free trade and dismantling of barriers to
trade, proponents of globalization according to critics, tend to overlook the process of how
goods and products are made. World Trade Organization (WTO) as the premier body for
trade dispute arbitration, rules with the idea that a country cannott embargo a good because
they object to the process by which it is made. Only the quality or content is relevant. This
has become known as the “product” versus “process” principle. If a product is made by child
labor, in unsafe conditions, or is damaging to the environment, it cannot be rejected.
Underdeveloped countries do not want to be pressured to impose labor and environmental
standards as it will make their products more costly. They want and need the business. They
also say that many people in the west may regard low-paying jobs at Nike factories as
exploitation but for many people in the underdeveloped world factory work is far better than
growing rice and risking hunger. They also add that child labor is the only way a family may
have as protection from starvation. This, according to Ehrenfeld (1012), makes it difficult for
a country to impose environmental labor or health standard. Economic development fueled
by manufacturing and export in rapidly advancing economies such as China and India led
7
to increased world coal

8
consumption, and therefore world carbon dioxide emissions. Industrial pollution has
devastating effects on climate change and the environment.

Globalization and Democracy

It is a well-established view by many that globalization encourages democratic

institutions which promote democracy. As the global market relies on capitalist democratic
values, it is inevitable that organizations that reinforce these values are rewarded- they can
expand into countries with other forms of government and promote these ideals. Hence, the
increased involvement of international non-governmental organizations and other businesses
that further the transparency and liability of institutions that reduce state intervention, all
which facilitate democracy. However, many scholars such as Jens Bartelson (2004) have a
contrary idea: globalization poses a threat to the democratic state instead of aiding its
expansion as it undermines the essential requirements of state autonomy, patriotism and
national identity. For this reason, one could say that political globalization could be a
contradiction in terms. Globalization is causing the decline of the nation state, as
governments no longer have control over their economy, their trade and their borders. Nation
states may have in the past been in complete control of their markets, exchange rates and
capital. Now, transnational companies are becoming increasingly imperative to the economy,
and the state is becoming obsolete. This supports the argument that globalization is reducing
the power of democracy and the state, resulting in “hollow” democracy.

Sceptics like Quan & Reuveny (2003) believe that while globalization promotes
opportunity for growth and increase in wealth, it has also increased the socio-economic
disparity between people, making nations less democratic and progressively more ruled by
the wealthy multinationals. This means that governments now try and compete for foreign
capital and design their policies to please global investors and firms, who may not act in the
best interest of, nor be held accountable to, the voters. It follows that the level of democracy
declines. Also, scholars such as Peter Drucker (1994) argue that globalization cripples even
more those who are less fortunate, as previously stated. Companies who are unable to
compete with multi nationals on an international scale lose from more economic openness.
The results of this loss cause a weakening in the country’s democracy. Another argument
made by O’Donnell (1993) is that in order for a stable and functioning democracy to work,
the concept of citizenship and participation must be active and embedded in the population.
According to him, globalization has transformed the common citizen into an individual who
is more willing to pursue its own economic interest than to be concerned with the content of
public policy.
Samir (1996) pointed out even in the international community; globalization has
increased the cleavage between the developed countries from the North and the developing
countries from the South. In international organizations such as the United Nations it is
commonly witnessed that the elite wealthy countries always have the final say in conflicts or
important issues that are discussed, which ends up swaying the domestic politics of less
developed countries to their favor.
Globalization and Cultural Values and Identity

The most controversial debate raised on the issue of cultural globalization is the
resulting “identity crisis” and the role of mass media as a facilitating tool for its expansion or
limitation. Cultural globalization is perceived by some like McLuhan (1968, 1964) as an
instrument for the establishment of universal unity and democracy based on a global culture
signified as the “global village” through the expansion of new communication systems.
However, others like Rajaei (2001) disagree and contend that globalization has not resulted in
a unified political and economic identity. In contrast, cultural globalization has destroyed
9
national

10
identities. Critics argue that cultural globalization will result in cultural dominance and
supremacy. The deterioration of endemic cultures will be replaced with a universal culture
promoting excessive consumption and dominance of the economic and information
technology powers of the world. These scholars believe that the western world is unfit to
provide a suitable response to cultural globalization.

Skelton & Allen (1999) contend that the cultural globalization that we are witnessing
today is not the net result of human endeavors and experiences and even it has not equitably
benefited from cultural diversities, rather it is the manifestation of dominance of a certain
overpowering culture. They emphasize that the efforts made to conform to the aggressive
culture or interpret western culture in various parts of the world have had disastrous results
and have revealed insurmountable cultural gaps. Thus, it is impossible to create a global
culture with this procedure, and it only widens the existing gap between cultures.
Globalization has affected certain values rooted in major religions and cultures of the world.
Concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, individual interaction with the society and the
very meaning of life are all warped and corrupted by global capitalism, international markets,
mass media and the promotion excessive consumption. Even some local languages and
valuable traditions are on the verge of disappearance as the result of globalization.

Muffazar (2002) points out that global consumerism is now forming a homogeneous
global culture where indigenous cultures of the South are being replaced by Western cultures.
Sociologist James Coleman (1990) notes the alienation of societies with their history and
their fascination with foreign values. According to him, these new values and beliefs have no
root or connection to their national identity. Therefore, globalization weakens the traditions
and values of local cultures for the sake of universal uniformity and dominance of a
commanding culture through the formidable power of international media.

Manuel Castells (2005) another sociologist, concludes that our world and our lives are
being shaped through two opposite trends namely, globalization and integrity of identities.
The information revolution and reconstruction of capitalism have established a new society
that could be called the “network society”. The most important characteristic of this society
is its prevalent culture established by a diverse and comprehensive media system. This novel
society threatens traditional social institutions and alters both culture and collective identity.
Power magnates and moguls prepare the news, information, science and political decisions at
the national and international levels and then inject them to the societies through the media.
Therefore, mass media is an instrument in the hand of the ruling class that not only justifies
its authority; it gains the support of its audiences. With this in mind, many communications
scholars and advocates of alternative media call for preservation of territorial integrity and
protection of national identity by establishing special media for specific groups and
audiences. To them, the advent and strengthening of media alternatives represent the
capability of various societies in introducing their own needs and point of views through
utilization of advanced and up- to-date technology.

Role of Ethics in Globalization

As the effects of globalization increases, ethics must itself become globalized. Ethical
principles have crossed many boundaries and have indeed became globalized. Cultural
differences and the advancement of technology have changed ethical beliefs and traditions.
There should be globalization of ethical principles despite diverse ethical beliefs and cultural
differences.

11
 Ethics cannot be separated from globalization. The great changes which globalization
has brought about to different cultural systems necessitates changes in the philosophical field
of Ethics. Ethics’ traditional manner of explaining good and evil and how to lead a good and
happy life in order to guide us in the right direction, needs to be reconstructed. Without this
adaptation, Ethics will be regarded as obsolete and futile and unable to adjust to new
conditions introduced by globalization.

In his work, The Imperative of Responsibility: In search of an Ethics for the

Technological Age, Hans Jonas (1984), indicated that traditional ethics has been based on
“simultaneousness,” “directness,” and “reciprocality.” In traditional ethics, “the range of
human action and therefore responsibility was narrowly circumscribed.” Moreover, he
asserted that:

All enjoinders and maxims of traditional ethics, materially different as they

may be, show this confinement to the immediate setting of the action.
“Love thy neighbor as thyself”; “Do unto others as you would wish them to
do unto you”; “Instruct your child in the way of truth”; “Strive for
excellence by developing and actualizing the best potentialities of your
being qua man”; “Subordinate your individual good to the common good”;
“Never treat your fellow man as a means only but always also as an end in
himself” and so on. Note that in all these maxims the agent and the “other”
of his action are sharers of a common present. It is those who are alive now
and in some relationship with me who have a claim on my conduct as it
affects them by deed or omission. The ethical universe is composed of
contemporaries, and its horizon to the future is confined by the foreseeable
span of their lives. Similarly confined is its horizon of place, within which
the agent and the other meet as neighbor, friend, or foe, as superior and
subordinate, weaker and stronger, and in all the other roles in which
humans interact with one another. To this proximate range of action all
morality was geared (Jonas, 1984).

This implies that traditional ethics had concentrated only on presence in the spatio-
temporal sense of the word. Traditional ethics has confined itself on beings who live in the
present or in the here and now. However, globalization, with its advanced technologies, has
decreased to a great degree the separation among people in terms of distance and time. In the
process, it also torn down the structure of the ethics of presence. In a globalized world where
different people connect through highly developed system of communication, distant and
absent individuals can possibly be located near another. Hence, a person’s decisions and
actions can possibly affect anybody residing on the other side of the globe.

What could be the reason for the limitation of the premises of traditional ethics?
According to Jonas (1984), when the conventional concept of ethics was developed, the
power of human action was not so great that it could destroy the world. When the force of
scientific technology exceeds the scale imagined by previous ethics, we have no choice but to
widen the scope of responsibility as new conditions might require. The measure of
responsibility must correspond with that of power. Furthermore, he explained:

It will be the burden of the present argument to show that these premises no
longer hold, and to reflect on the meaning of this fact for our moral
condition. More specifically, it will be my contention that with certain
developments of our powers the nature of human action has changed, and,
since ethics is concerned with action, it should follow that the changed
12
nature

13
 of human action calls for a change in ethics as well: this not merely in the
sense that new objects of action have added to the case material on which
received rules of conduct are to be applied, but in the more radical sense
that the qualitatively novel nature of certain of our actions has opened up a
whole new dimension of ethical relevance for which there is no precedent
in the standards and canons of traditional ethics. The novel powers I have in
mind are, of course, those of modern technology (Jonas, 1984).

To effect its transformation into a new ethics, a global ethics, traditional ethics must
respond to the challenges and issues that globalization brings. It must rethink its principles
vis- à-vis the sophistication of the new world. It must consider, in its revisit, the future world
and future generations or those who are not yet existing. It must also consider not only men
but all living organisms together with their environment. Jonas (1984) argued:

And what if the new kind of human action would mean that more than the
interest of man alone is to be considered that our duty extends farther, and
the anthropocentric confinement of former ethics no longer holds? It is at
least not senseless anymore to ask whether the condition of extrahuman
nature, the biosphere as a whole and in its parts, now subject to our power,
has become a human trust and has something of a moral claim on us not
only for our ulterior sake but for its own and in its own right. If this were
the case it would require quite some rethinking in basic principles of ethics.
It would mean to seek not only the human good but also the good of things
extrahuman, that is, to extend the recognition of “ends in themselves”
beyond the sphere of man and make the human good include the care for
them.

Jonas regards man as having a special place among all beings. He thinks that due to
man’s immense technological ability, he must have the full responsibility for all beings. Since
man holds great power he is bound to assume great responsibility.

We are all part of a global community. Since our decisions and actions can impact
anybody anywhere in the world, we need to consider them accordingly. A new ethics is
necessary to the global community’s future. At this point, ethics does not possess a universal
language. While there may be some ethical principles that are similar, every culture’s beliefs
and practices vary which makes the exercise of ethics unique. Consequently, it behooves us
to seek a global ethics, a new one that is approved and received willingly by every culture so
that the global civil society can continue to be. A new ethics founded on globally shared
values and manifested in interlocking rights and responsibilities.

Pluralism in relation to Globalization and Ethics

The more the merrier! Pluralism is an idea used in many different ways. In its general
sense, it refers to the theory that there is more than one basic principle. Pluralism, also known
as the “doctrine of multiplicity” suggests differences in concepts, world views, discourses,
viewpoints etc. and that they differ widely from subject area to subject area.

Pluralism is an interpretation of social diversity. It can be rendered as a political,

cultural, social, or philosophical stance. Any kind of pluralism makes at the very least an
empirical thesis about irreducible diversity. Yet each of these kinds of pluralism pivots
around different types of conflict – including ethical values, social or cultural practices,
epistemological
14
worldviews, ideologies, and/or political interests – and each accounts for these clashes from a
different angle and with different implications.

Socio-political Pluralism

As a political concept, it is the acknowledgment and the affirmation of diversity

among the polity, which permits toleration and the peaceful co-existence of differences. Pratt
(2015) pointed out political pluralism exists where multiple distinct groups share power to
promote compromise and coalitions preventing any form of political absolutism. Social
pluralism could be said to exist in a situation where distinctions are made between private
values for life and public values for social order. Yaacob (2013) defined religious pluralism as
religious diversity or heterogeneity. In this context, pluralism is the recognition of multiple
religious groups to co- exist harmoniously.

Whereas political, cultural and religious pluralisms articulate the social difference that
stems from habits, beliefs, ideologies or interests, philosophical pluralism goes further and
adds an interpretation of the origin, character, and experience of value heterogeneity. Ethical
pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views and stance that are each worthy
of respect, therefore, the claim that there are not just one single good for human beings, but
many. The varieties of good may lead to conflicts in values, but it does not mean that the
values are subjective. Some values are important only for people of a certain group, which
are recognized but not held by other people. The list of values may include: Freedom, justice,
equality, harmony, solidarity, love, friendship, fidelity, naturalness, utility, affluence, etc.

One glittering example that has been the subject of much discussion and debate lately
not only in our country (with Duterte’s War on Drugs) but across Asia, particularly in China,
is the principle of universal human rights. Human rights is construed as the idea of
‘individual freedom’ in Western societies, but in the orient, it is deemed more from the
vantage point of ‘common good’ and preservation of the community. Individual freedom and
common interests can conflict with each other even if both are in accordance with the same
moral principle.

Moral Value Pluralism

Ethical pluralism connotes the idea that there are diverse theories about what is
morally "right" and "wrong", and that which may be incompatible and/or incommensurable
with our own personal and cultural moral norms (Sher, 2011). In Ethics, moral pluralism
assumes that there are many independent and different sources of moral values.

Moral pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or value pluralism) believes that there
are many moral values which may be equally correct but disagree with each other. It
postulates that there is no single truth, even in moral matters. In moral pluralism conflicting
moral views lack a basis for comparison in respect to importance.

Moral pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views that
are each worthy of respect. Moral pluralists tend to be open-minded when
faced with competing viewpoints. They analyze issues from several moral
points of view before deciding and taking action. Moral pluralists believe
that many moral issues are extremely complicated. Thus, no single
philosophical approach will always provide all the answers.

15
 For example, assume a building is on fire. A woman has the opportunity to
rush inside and save the children trapped in the burning building. But in
doing this she may die, and leave her own child an orphan. A moral
pluralist would conclude that there is no definitive way to decide which is
the better course of moral action.

Indeed, moral pluralism declares that it is sometimes difficult to choose

between competing values. So, moral pluralism occupies a sensible middle
ground between “there is only one right answer” as moral absolutism says,
and “there is no wrong answer” as moral relativism claims. (Moral
Pluralism n.d.)

Universal or absolute set of ethical principles has no place in moral relativism.

Evaluation of moral standards in moral relativism are culturally defined since there are many
differences across cultures. Preference of moral values of one culture over another has no
objective grounds. Every culture makes its own moral judgments based on its unique beliefs,
customs, and practices. People assume that the right moral values are the values that can be
found in their own culture.

Since moral pluralism seeks balance in competing principles, it encourages different

cultures to carefully understand and accommodate their differences by
avoiding extremism (sticking blindly to just one moral value, or at the very least unwilling to
acknowledge the legitimacy of other moral values). Since human values, by their very nature,
come into conflict with other, sometimes compromises between these values should be found.

Criticisms on Pluralism

1. Pluralism as Relativism

Pluralism seems to suggest relativism. According to this line of reasoning, in order to

be a pluralist it’s necessary to believe that all ethical laws are relative to culture and
circumstance, so there can be no one moral law that applies to everyone. So by extension,
some people believe that pluralism cannot exist alongside universal morality. For this reason,
several metaethicists including Shafer-Landau (2004) have argued that realism alone can
support the commitment to toleration as a universal value—such that intolerance can be
morally condemned—because only realism allows for the existence of universal, objective
moral values.

J. Baird Callicot (1999) claims that moral pluralism leads to relativism, skepticism
and the undermining and weakening of moral obligations. He asserts that moral pluralism
provides no basis for determining which are of multiple incomparable principles to follow in
any given circumstance, thus without a unitary system of morals, we tend to lose moral and
intellectual coherence. This assertion by Callicot is best illustrated in the quest for an
environmental ethic and the search for the right moral grounding for issues on global climate
change, pollution overload, resource depletion and other environmental challenges and
concerns.

Indeed, the main objection to pluralism is its capacity to solve real moral problems.
Whether the issue on hand is organ harvesting and sale, cloning, divorce, euthanasia or same
sex marriage, in solving moral conflicts, pluralists have to rely merely on judgement as there
is no principle by which they can draw the conclusion that it is on the whole right or on the
whole wrong. But then, they can never be sure that they are right. They just have “more or
16
less probable opinions” with regard to the right solution of conflicts. Hence, there is no
possibility

17
of moral action. One therefore could only think that there is something problematic with such
a concept of conflict-resolution.

According to Connolly (1996), pluralism is usually conflated with relativism, that is,
with an account of the rightness and wrongness of moral judgments that attaches normative
warrant to different cultural and historical contexts. Indeed, some thinkers have claimed that
pluralism and relativism are cognates. However, pluralism departs from this view in two
consequential aspects: its account of culture and its role; and its conception of
incommensurability. Pluralism, unlike relativism, does not attach ultimate normative
authority to cultures. Culture does not stand as the final source of normative assessment nor
that determine the central ground upon which value decisions are arrived at. In other words,
culture does not determine the scope or justification for pluralism. Second is the idea of
incommensurability. While in relativism moral judgments make reference to the cultures in
which they emerge and in turn are untranslatable into each other (it is not possible to assess
the relative worth of conflicting judgments – moral judgments and their corresponding
cultures are therefore incommensurable), for the pluralist, the notion of incommensurability is
not attached to or hemmed in by cultures. Incommensurability is an attribute that applies to
the character of values themselves, regardless of cultural boundaries. For pluralism,
incommensurability cuts across cultural borders and applies to the universe of values that are
significant to human experience. Pluralists make room for meaningful normative assessment
among incommensurable views. Ethical pluralism makes a distinction between thin
(minimalist) morality and thick (maximalist) morality. Ethical pluralism allows that there are
a few basic moral principles that all cultures should follow but beyond these principles, each
culture can have its own value system, provided that it does not violate the higher moral
principles. Therefore, thin morality is the same everywhere (ex. idea of goodness, respect for
life) whereas thick morality is valid only for people in the same community (example:
notions of bravery or courage).

2. Pluralism as Tolerance to Liberalism

From the philosophical perspective, pluralism entails an irreducible, open-ended

exercise in practical reason. In any of its versions, pluralism yields necessarily tentative and
inconclusive ethical decisions. From this perspective, pluralism opens the possibility of a
permanent rewriting of normative dispositions. In short, pluralism holds that social diversity
and the disagreement that grows from it are unending.

Tolerating practices and values with which one might disagree has been a hallmark of
liberal democratic societies. Should this permissive attitude, however, be extended
indiscriminately to all values and practices with which one disagrees? Are some moral
differences simply intolerable, such that it would undermine one’s own moral convictions to
even attempt to tolerate them? More than that, is it conceptually possible or desirable to
tolerate the intolerance of others? This is the paradox sometimes referred to as the Liberal’s
Dilemma. Karl Popper (1945) famously argued against the toleration of intolerance, which
he saw as an overly-indulgent extension of the concept and one which would undermine the
“open society” he believed to be a prerequisite for toleration in the first place.

Critic on Value Pluralism

Isaiah Berlin (commonly credited for fathering value-pluralism) posited that

incompatible values may be incommensurable, i.e. they do not share a common standard of
measurement or cannot be compared to each other in a certain way. Brown (1986) suggested
that Berlin ignores the fact that values are indeed commensurable as they can be compared by
18
their varying contributions towards the human good. Regarding the ends of freedom,
equality, efficiency, creativity, etc., Brown thought that none of these are ends in themselves
but are valued for their consequences. Berlin, according Brown (1986) has failed to show that
the problem of conflicting values is insoluble in principle.

Pluralism questions moral truths which becomes problematic since moral

absoluteness of a human act is affirmed by religions. Another problem of pluralism, as a
product of multiculturalism, is the idea that it downplays a continual dialogue between
subcultures and larger cultures and the ways that this dialogue inescapably defines us
(Fowers, and Richardson, 1996). If pluralism does not defend the uniqueness of subcultures,
it could promote the dominant culture, which can lead to tyranny.

As the global community grows, most individual cultures are being diluted and nation
states need to step up so as to prevent the weakening of their cultures by foreign media
contents and to counter influences in their domestic moral values and beliefs (Thierstein, and
Kamalipour, 2000).

In his work, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism”, Dr. Alister E.

McGrath demonstrated the untenability of moral pluralism.

To claim that it does not matter which religion we adhere to is in effect to

say that it does not matter what behavior we adopt. The two are integrally
connected. And that is very evident today when decline in religion in
Western countries is accompanied by massive moral collapse. Relativism in
belief and relativism in morals go together. The result is disastrous. Think
of the unwanted girl children left exposed to die on the hillsides of Ancient
Greece. Think of the human sacrifices to the fish deity in ancient
Polynesian religion. Think of the murder and gang rape carried out by
practitioners of Satanism. Are we to believe that these all spring from
differing insights into the same ultimate reality, as the pluralists claim? Not
only is pluralism ethically irresponsible, it is also morally impotent. It gives
you no ethical standard, and offers you no moral power (McGrath, n.d.).

In Philippine society, it is common for Filipinos to be resilient and courageous and

optimistic, despite the fact that they are stricken mostly by natural calamities, economic
turbulence, and global pandemics. Hence, there is a call for ethical responsibility that needs
to be promoted globally.

Teaching and Learning Activities

Activity 1

Direction: Students will be grouped into ten. Each group will answer the question: What are
the advantages and disadvantages of globalization?

Globalization
Advantages Disadvantages

19
Activity 2
Direction: Research one finished product whose materials came from at least two countries of
origin from being a raw material to its processing in a factory or several factories until its
display in a store or mall in a certain country.
a. Explain briefly the history of the product.
b. Discuss any ethical issue if any in the making of the product.

140
 Exercise 2

Name: Course & Year:

Essay: (10 points each item)

1. How does globalization reshape the different dimensions in our lives?

2. What is the role of ethics in a globalized world?

3. Does moral pluralism seek balance in competing principles? Explain your answer.

4. Does pluralism downplay a dialogue between subcultures and larger cultures?

141
Example:
Product: Ichaguera Super Electric Fan
Description: The Ichaguera Super Electric Fan is a Philippine product whose different parts
come from Japan (for the small turbo machine that makes the fan work when plugged to an
electric outlet), from China (for the plastic ware and metal ware of the electric fan), from
Borneo (the factory that assembles the product) and shipped to the Philippines. FTMJ
Corporation declares the containers as cheap floor mats instead of the expensive Ichaguera
Super Electric Fan to the Bureau of Customs thereby paying only Ph 50, 000.00. fee of the 50
containers. FTMJ Corporation transports and sells these fans to its different branches all over
the country. FTMJ is the owner of the factory in Borneo.
Ethical Issue: Discuss child labor and cheap labor in both China and Borneo as an ethical
issue. Discuss the unethical practices in the Bureau of Customs.

Assessment Task:
Learning Resources
Albrow, M. and King E. (eds.) (1990). Globalization, knowledge and society.
London: Sage.
Al-Rodham N. and Stoudmann, G. (2006). Definitions of globalization: A
comprehensive overview and a proposed definition. Program on the
Geopolitical Implications of Globalization and Transactional Security.
[Link]
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bartelson, J. (2004). The critique of the state. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Callicot, J. B. (1999). Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental philosophy.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Castells, M. (2005). Global governance and global politics. In PS: Political Science and
Politics, American Political Science Association Vol. 38 No. 1 Jan. 2005.
Coleman, W. (1990). Globalization and autonomy: An overview.
[Link]
nomy_An_Overview
Connolly, W. (1996). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Cox, Rt. (1996). Approaches to world order: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drucker, P. (1994). The theory of the business. In Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct
1994 Issue.
Ehrenfeld, J. (2012). Beyond the brave new world: Business for sustainability.
[Link]
_World_Business_For_Sustainability
Friedman, T. (2000). The lexus and the olive tree. New York: Harper Collins.
Held, D.; Goldblatt, D.; McGrew, A.; Perraton, J. (1999). Global
transformations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Huntington, S. (1993). The clash of civilizations? In Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.
[Link] States/1993-06-01/Clash-
Civilizations
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.) [Link]
International Monetary Fund. (2002). Globalization: A framework for
IMF
involvement. Washington: International Monetary Fund.
James, P. (2006). Globalism, Nationalism, Tibalism: Bringing Theory Back In.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.

142
James, P. and Steger, M. (2010). Globalization and culture: Vol. 4. ideologies of
globalization. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Jonas, H. (1984) The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the
technological age, Translated by Hans Jonas in collaboration with
David
Herr, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Juzhong Z. and Li S. (2016). Understanding recent trends in income inequality in the
People’s Republic of China. ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 480.
Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Keohane, R. (2002). Power and governance in a partially globalized world. New
York: Routledge.
Khor, M. (1999). Globalization and the south: Some critical issues. Penang: Third
World Network.
nd
Kosmin, B. (2001). The rising tide of secularity. Published speech delivered at the 32
Annual Convention of the Freedoms from Religion Foundation at Red Lion
Hotel, Seattle, Nov 7, 2009.
Lamy, P. (2006). History of globalization. Paris: Vuilbert.
McLuhan, M. (1968). War and peace in the global village. New York: Gingko Press.
Moghadan, V. (2005). Globalizing women: Transitional feminist networks.
Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
Muffazar, C. (2002). Islam and the west. In Frontline, published interview available
online at [Link]
muslims/themes/[Link].
Ohmae, K. (1992). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked
economy. New York: Harper Business.
O’Donell, G. (1993). On the state, democratization and some conceptual problems: A
Latin American View with Glances at Some Post-Communist Countries. In
World Development, Vol 21 Issue 8 August 1993.
Pratt, S. (2015). American philosophy from wounded knee to the present. London:
Bloomsbury.
Quan, L. & Reuveny, R. (2003). Economic openness, democracy and income
inequality: An Empirical Analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Rajaei, F. (2001). The phenomenon of globalization. Tehran: Agah Publication.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Samir, A. (1996). The challenge of globalization. In Review of International Political
Economy, Vol 3. No. 2 Summer 1996.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. (2003). Moral realism: A defense. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Skelton, T. & Allen, T. (1999). Culture and global change. London: Routledge.
Steger, M. (2005). Globalism: Marjet ideology meets terrorism. New York: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Steger, M. (2014). Globalization: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). [Link]
Yaacob, M. F. (2013). The challenge of religions: Pluralism in Malaysia.
[Link]
143
Watson, J. (2016). Golden arches east: McDonalds in East Asia. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
World Bank. (2001). Globalization and development. Washington: The World Bank.

144