Working without shame in international educational development? From consequentialism to casuistry

Abstract

The central question addressed in this paper is about the ethics of engaging with educational development in countries perceived as undemocratic or as failing to respect human rights. More particularly, it examines the nature of the arguments that are brought to bear on this issue. It suggests that these are essentially consequentialist in character and hence fall prey to many of the limitations of such consequentialism, including the unpredictability of what will unfold, the indeterminacy of the consequences and the complex balance sheet of (perhaps incommensurable) benefits and loss that might be anticipated. The paper also suggests some unease about the way judgements of the acceptability or otherwise of political processes are made across international boundaries and the presumptions of a ‘democratic’ western perspective. The observation of these complexities of principle and fact take the argument into the territory of case-based ethical judgement and the world of casuistry.

Keywords:

• international development
• educational development
• consequentialism
• casuistry
• human rights
• business ethics

Acknowledgements

I should perhaps acknowledge that over the period of my own engagement in development education, I have worked in a number of countries marked by political practices of an unsavoury character as well as others which certainly have been and remain contentious. Today my work is mainly focused on Kazakhstan – a commitment that has raised some eyebrows in my department albeit, in some cases, among staff who had some difficulty in distinguishing it (as indeed I would have done a few years ago) from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan or any other central Asian republic. So this paper, I acknowledge, risks the accusation of special pleading or, casuistry of the disreputable rather than ethically sophisticated kind.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. In Letter VII, for example, Pascal provides the example of the way in which the Jesuits reconciled the gospel requirement to ‘turn the other cheek’ – ‘vengeance is mine saith the Lord’ – with contemporary attachment to preserving honour through often fatal duels. ‘Such is the way in which our fathers (i.e. Jesuits monks) have contrived to permit those acts of violence to which men usually resort in vindication of their honour. They have no more to do than to turn off their intention from the desire of vengeance, which is criminal, and direct it to a desire to defend their honour, which, according to us, is quite warrantable. And in this way our doctors discharge all their duty towards God and towards man. By permitting the action, they gratify the world; and by purifying the intention, they give satisfaction to the Gospel’ (Pascal 1660).