The term "deglobalization" is becoming increasingly prevalent on social media and the internet. Broadly defined, deglobalization refers to a movement towards a less connected world, characterized by powerful nation-states, local solutions, and border controls, rather than global institutions, treaties, and free movement (Kornprobst & Wallace, 2021). Although the term has existed for decades, its fluctuating presence in social media and the internet is often triggered by specific events, with the most recent being Trump's tariffs.

Rather than discussing whether Trump's tariffs will lead to deglobalization or identifying the milestones of this process, this article aims to explore one of the potential aspects of deglobalization that has often been overlooked: the moral dimension.

Exploring something like the deglobalization of shared moral values or the end of global ethics is a complex endeavor. To discuss these topics meaningfully, we must first establish whether such moral values or ethics exist. Do they truly exist, and what about human rights?

These questions are examined in Michael Ignatieff's book, The Ordinary Virtues: Moral Order in a Divided World (2017). His conclusion may not align with a more optimistic perspective: "The human rights revolution has changed our conception of the duty of states, but I doubt it has changed us" (272).

Through his travels to New York, Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, Bosnia, Myanmar, Fukushima, and South Africa, Ignatieff aimed to explore how individuals confront challenging realities. He concludes that the prevailing moral system in people's lives is that of ordinary virtues, rather than human rights and global ethics. This suggests that our moral decisions are context-dependent rather than based on abstract and generalizable moral reasoning. Michael Ignatieff identified virtues such as trust, tolerance, forgiveness, reconciliation, and resilience as ordinary because they are prosaic, daily-based, spontaneous, and unpremeditated. These virtues develop with practice acquired through experience, thereby permeating moral life and facilitating community life.

Nevertheless, this does not suggest that we have failed to develop the foundation of a global ethic. The process of moral globalization has promoted the idea of a right to speak and be heard, grounded in the moral equality of individuals. This principle of moral equality has been embraced in dialogues across much of the world. Consequently, we are continually required to justify our moral values to an ever-widening audience with increasingly diverse moral values.

However, it is crucial to maintain realistic expectations regarding the extent of this global ethics. The validity of a moral proposition, in accordance with the preceding argument, depends on its truth for a specific group in a particular place and its capacity to provide meaning to a specific situation and context. It does not rely on its potential to be universalized or generalized.

Considering this context, one must inquire about the ethical utility of human rights in a world where ordinary virtues hold higher authority. Ignatieff posits that human rights compel ordinary virtues to broaden their scope of moral concern, as they elevate the familiar. In essence, "human rights urge citizens to be morally consistent and universalistic in their outlook toward strangers in danger, even though everyday virtue will always encourage them to favor nearby citizens" (270).

These observations are both disheartening and inspiring. It is disheartening because, despite repeatedly witnessing atrocities around the world, one would anticipate that we would have established firmer grounds for a shared set of values prioritizing human dignity (however that means at this point). Globalization has facilitated the sharing of technologies, consumer behaviors, lifestyles, and temporary trends that, upon reflection, may appear senseless or slightly embarrassing (e.g., internet challenges such as the ice bucket challenge, dances like Gangnam Style, or countless trending reels on Instagram or TikTok), yet has not fostered something like a global ethic.

It is inspiring because there are no signs that we will lose the inherent diversity of human life, which is what makes it so rich. Additionally, nothing will alter the fact that our respectability, greatness, and honour are measured significantly by how we confront challenges in daily life and interact with those around us, adhering to a moral system of ordinary virtues.

The real challenge presented by something akin to "moral deglobalization" is the loss of the fundamental principle that individuals have the right to speak and be heard, rooted in the moral equality of all people. Our moral system of ordinary virtues is fragile and does not protect us from abuse, injustice, or cruelty. At best, it assists us in managing these issues once they have occurred.

There is a paradox in all of this: to avoid the scenario of moral globalization, it is unavoidable to resort to (international) politics. In an increasingly fragmented world, where the idea of a universally accepted set of moral principles may seem untenable, the natural course of events is for this fragmentation to deepen, as well as the injustices inherent in a world where no one is accountable to a broader moral order.

References

Ignatieff, M. (2017). The Ordinary Virtues: Moral Order in a Divided World. Harvard University Press.
Kornprobst, M., & Wallace, J. (2021). What is deglobalization?, Catham House.