2.3.2. THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE LIBERAL WORLDVIEW
Just like realists, liberals share some fundamental beliefs (Moravcsik 1997, 516-524). In the first place, neo-liberals accept some realist premises: the international system is characterised by anarchy and states are the central unit of analysis (Jackson and Sørensen 2010, 120; Stein 2008, 203 and 205; Russet 2010, 96; Walt 1998, 38). But whereas realists see anarchy as a static problem, liberals believe in “the possibility of change and improvement” (Stein 2008, 204). Liberals do not claim that realist constraints (e.g.. balance of power) on conflict are unimportant, but they do claim that liberal constraints (i.e. democracy, economic interdependence, and international organisations) have proven to be stronger than the realist constraints (Russet 2010, 100-105). While liberalism is not a monolithic theory, Moravcsik remarks that liberal theories “are stronger when taken together” (1997, 533-534). Take, for instance, the so-called “McDonald’s Peace” (cf. Friedman 1996). Claiming that happy meals bring happy times may sound like cheap marketing, but it is founded on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant who claimed that
…show more content…
In comparison, the Liberal International has stated that “Freedom, responsibility, tolerance, social justice and equality of opportunity (…) are the central values of Liberalism” (1997). The EU’s normative basis is thus liberal in character. From a liberal perspective, a policy that seeks to promote liberal norms is morally good because liberal norms enhance peace and ensure “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” (Bentham 1988 [1776], 126; see also Jackson and Sørensen 2010, 30-35; Russet 2010,