Abstract
In ethical debate, the ‘middle ground’ signifies the position between two alternatives in applied ethics, alternatives that are frequently represented as, or demonstrated to be, extremes. This may be the distance between two opposed moralities, such as allowing homosexuals to become ministers in the Church of England, at one end, as opposed to forbidding them even the sacraments. It may also be the distance between a thoroughgoing moral skepticism and the further reaches of naïve ‘idealism’. Molly Cochran has recently used the term ‘middle ground’ to characterize the aspirations of members of the British Committee on International Theory, to locate an ethic that could combine state interests with some form of international morality (Cochran 2009). The term echoes Aristotle’s ‘mean’ (sometimes the ‘golden mean’); and the method of argument frequently follows the structure of the Nicomachean ethics, where Aristotle proposed that virtuous conduct was to be found in the avoidance of extremes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Brighouse, H. & A. Swift (2006). ‘Equality, Priority and Positional Goods’, Ethics 116, pp. 471–97.
Bull, Hedley (1995). The Anarchical Society. London: Macmillan.
Cochran, Molly (2009). ‘Charting the Ethics of the English School: What “Good” Is There in a Middle Ground Ethics’, International Studies Quarterly 53, pp. 203–25.
Crowder, George (2002). Liberalism and Value Pluralism. London and New York: Continuum.
Dworkin, Ronald (2000). Sovereign Virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Finnemore, M. (2008). ‘Paradoxes of Humanitarian Intervention’ in R. Price ed., Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–24.
Galston, William A. (2002). Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodin, Robert E. (1995). ‘Political Ideals and Political Practice’, British Journal of Political Science 25, pp. 37–56.
Kratochwil, F. (2001). ‘International Law as an Approach to International Ethics: A Plea for a Jurisprudential Diagnostic’ in J. Coicaud and D. Warner eds. Ethics and International Affairs. Toyko: UN University, pp. 14–41.
Lamprecht, S. (1920). ‘The Need for a Pluralist Emphasis in Ethics’, American Journal of Philosophy 17, pp. 561–72.
Lamprecht, S. (1921). ‘Some Political Implications of Ethical Pluralism’, American Journal of Philosophy 18, pp. 225–44.
Larmore, C. (1996). The Morals of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linklater, A. (1990). Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations. London: Macmillan Press.
Linklater, A. (1997). The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lipsey, R.G. & K. Lancaster (1956) ‘The General Theory of the Second Best’, Review of Economic Studies 24, pp. 11–32.
Lu, Catherine (2012). ‘Tragedies and International Relations’ in T. Erskine & N. Lebow eds., Tragedy in International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 158–71.
Molloy, Sean (2008). ‘Hans J. Morgenthau Versus E. H. Carr: Conflicting Conceptions of Ethics in Realism’ in Duncan Bell ed., Political Thought and International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–104.
Murphy, Liam (1998). ‘Institutions and the Demands of Justice’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 27, pp. 251–91.
Nagel, T. (1991). Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 128–41.
Navari, C. (1996). ‘Civic Republicanism and Self-Determination’ in M. Wright ed. Morality and International Relations. Aldershot: Avebury.
Navari, C. (2013). Public Intellectuals and International Affairs: Essays on Public Thinkers and Political Projects. Dordrecht: Republic of Letters.
Price, R. (2008). Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999a). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999b). Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reus-Smit, C. (2009a). The Moral Purpose of the State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Reus-Smit, C. (2009b). ‘Constructivism and the English School’ in C. Navari ed., Theorising International Society: English School Methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 58–77.
Reus-Smit, C. (2011). ‘Human Rights in a Global Ecumene’ International Affairs 87, pp. 1205–218.
Sen, Amartya (2006). ‘What Do We Want from a Theory of Justice?’ Journal of Philosophy 103, pp. 215–38.
Treitschke, H. (1963). Politics ed. Hans Kohn New York, Harcourt, Brace and World.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Walzer, M. (1987). Interpretation and Social Criticism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Cornelia Navari
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Navari, C. (2013). The Terrain of the Middle Ground. In: Navari, C. (eds) Ethical Reasoning in International Affairs. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137290960_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137290960_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45066-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-29096-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)