The shifting moral pendulum

The Tribune

Context and Core Proposition

The article reflects on the erosion and selective application of moral principles in international politics, using contemporary geopolitical events—particularly interventions, sanctions, and regime-change narratives—as illustrative cases. It argues that pluralism, non-aggression, and moral restraint, once central to liberal internationalism, are increasingly subordinated to interest-driven justifications.

The central concern is not moral decline per se, but the instrumentalisation of morality—where ethical principles are invoked, suspended, or reversed depending on political convenience.

Key Arguments Presented

1. From Universal Principles to Selective Morality

The article argues that:

• Values such as non-aggression, sovereignty, and pluralism are no longer applied consistently
• Actions once considered morally unacceptable are now justified as “necessary” or “exceptional”
• Moral reasoning has shifted from universality to situational expediency

This marks a transition from principled ethics to contingent ethics.

2. Pluralism Under Strain

A central thesis is that:

• Pluralism requires acceptance of ideological, political, and cultural differences
• Contemporary global discourse increasingly frames difference as moral deviance
• Interventionist impulses grow when pluralism is abandoned

The article warns that abandoning pluralism weakens the emancipatory promise of liberal values themselves.

3. Normalisation of Exceptionalism

The author highlights how:

• Exceptional circumstances are repeatedly invoked to justify coercion
• Once exceptions become routine, norms lose their constraining power
• Moral outrage becomes selective and performative

This creates a world where almost anything can be defended, provided the narrative is persuasive.

4. Moral Certainty and Political Polarisation

The piece argues that:

• Moral absolutism discourages self-reflection
• Political communities increasingly divide the world into “good” and “evil” actors
• Such binaries erode dialogue and compromise

This moral rigidity, the author suggests, is as dangerous as moral relativism.

5. International Relations as a Moral Testing Ground

The article situates its argument within global politics, suggesting that:

• Foreign policy debates reveal how ethics are subordinated to power
• Public opinion often accepts moral contradictions when national interest is invoked
• The global order is drifting toward ethical incoherence rather than ethical collapse

Author’s Stance

The author adopts a normative, pluralist, and reflective stance:

• Strongly critical of moral exceptionalism
• Defends pluralism as a foundational ethical principle
• Skeptical of interventionist ethics cloaked in humanitarian language

The tone is cautionary and philosophical rather than ideological or partisan.

Biases and Editorial Leanings

1. Normative Idealism

The article:

• Assumes that consistent moral frameworks are achievable in international politics
• Underplays the constraints imposed by power asymmetries and security dilemmas

This reflects ethical idealism more than realist pragmatism.

2. Skepticism of Liberal Interventionism

There is:

• A clear distrust of humanitarian justifications for coercive action
• Limited engagement with cases where intervention prevented large-scale harm

This may appear dismissive of genuine ethical dilemmas in global governance.

3. Intellectualist Bias

The argument:

• Appeals more to philosophical consistency than policy practicality
• May resonate more with academic audiences than practitioners

Pros and Cons of the Argument

Pros

• Offers a nuanced critique of moral hypocrisy in global politics
• Defends pluralism as an ethical necessity, not mere tolerance
• Encourages ethical self-scrutiny rather than moral grandstanding
• Helps aspirants move beyond simplistic “right vs wrong” frameworks

Cons

• Lacks concrete institutional or policy alternatives
• Underestimates the role of coercion in preventing humanitarian catastrophes
• Remains largely normative, not operational

Policy Implications

1. Foreign Policy Ethics

• States must recognise the long-term costs of moral inconsistency
• Norm erosion weakens international law and multilateral institutions

2. Global Governance

• Pluralism should be treated as a stabilising principle, not a moral compromise
• Selective norm enforcement undermines legitimacy

3. Public Discourse

• Democracies must resist simplified moral narratives
• Ethical debate should allow space for ambiguity and restraint

Real-World Impact

• Explains growing global cynicism toward moral claims in international affairs
• Highlights why norms such as sovereignty and non-intervention are weakening
• Illuminates the ethical roots of geopolitical instability

For UPSC aspirants, the article sharpens answers on ethics in international relations, especially where values collide with interests.

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper II – International Relations

• Ethics in foreign policy
• Sovereignty vs intervention
• Norms in global governance

GS Paper IV – Ethics, Integrity, and Aptitude

• Moral reasoning
• Consistency vs consequentialism
• Ethical dilemmas in public life

GS Paper I – Society (Globalisation & Ideologies)

• Impact of ideological absolutism
• Decline of pluralistic norms

Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The article powerfully argues that the greatest threat to moral politics today is not immorality, but selective morality. By abandoning pluralism and normalising exceptions, societies risk hollowing out the very principles they claim to defend. While the realities of power make ethical consistency difficult, the absence of self-restraint makes moral discourse incoherent and international order unstable. Going forward, the challenge is not to choose between values and interests, but to prevent interests from erasing values altogether. The survival of pluralism depends less on moral certainty, and more on ethical humility.