Global Governance a myth or reality

Is Global Governance a myth or reality?

 

Sample Solution

Global governance a myth or reality

The term global governance suggests and implies a degree of order and control in the international community far beyond that which presently exists, and that in fact could only be achieved by means of a global government. The global governance myth has emerged to help people cope with the uncongenial and presumably unavoidable reality that we are living in a world in which global government is impossible, and in which therefore the international condition is most accurately described as international anarchy. Concepts fundamentally shape our social reality and constitute the boundaries of what is possible and what is not. Global governance, as such concept, opens up our social reality to new opportunities and choices while simultaneously excluding previously available options.

In order to test and determine whether an attempt at defining “good” is correct and not a concealed assignment is what Moore called the “open question argument.” Moore proposed that if “goodness” is a natural property, then there is some correct explanation of which natural property it is. For example, maybe “goodness” is the same property as “pleasantness”, or the same property as being “desirable”. Further, a correct property must be identified to fill in an identity statement of the form “goodness = __________”, or, “what is good is _________”. This kind of identity statement can be correct only if both terms on either side of the identity sign are synonyms for proficient speakers who understand both terms. Synonymy of the two terms is then tested through substitution of a term. Moore’s idea is that substitution of synonyms for one another preserves the original proposition that a sentence expresses. For example, using the sentence: “what is good is pleasant.” For this to pass Moore’s test, the sentence would have to express the same thing as “what is pleasant is pleasant.” Moore believed it was obvious that these two sentences do not express the same proposition. In thinking that what is good is pleasant, Moore thought one is not only thinking that what is pleasant is pleasant. According to Moore, there is an “open question” as to whether what is good is pleasant, and it can be understood when someone doubts the generated statement. However, there is no “open question” as to whether what is pleasant is pleasant, because this analytic truth cannot be doubted. Therefore, Moore thought that no substitution will pass the test. Therefore, there is no natural property of “goodness”. In other words, according to Moore and his open question argument, “goodness” is a non-natural property.

Objections to the open question argument include the fact that Moore

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.