Michael Ignatieff is a liberal interventionist; he supports military action and defends democracy and human rights. Ignatieff also believes strongly in cosmopolitanism. He believes that humans have obligations to each other, and as a result, does not view fellow citizens different than total strangers.
In my opinion, Ignatieff’s beliefs are commendable, moral, and practical; and I strongly agree with his opinions. This is because Ignatieff’s ultimate goal is the defence of democracy and human rights. He has insisted that they promote peace and allow individuals to flourish. Igatieff believes that democracy reduces the chance of war and it limits radical political parties. He believes that human rights allow individuals to live a respectable life. Ignatieff believes that democracy and human rights are “the fundamental duties that every government has to its citizens”
Michael Ignatieff has insisted that western governments will have to accept and apply the “lesser evil” reasoning in order to stabilize and democratize a country in dire need. The “lesser evil” reasoning can be defined as “When no option is absolutely moral, one can only choose that which is likeliest to minimize harm.” This reasoning may not be the perfect way to govern a country. However, it is realistic. This is because “there may be times when decision-makers face no good choices”
Ignatieff believes that “the messiness of the world makes it impossible to operate by strict and unyielding codes of conduct. The gap between ideals and reality sometimes yawns too wide, and no policy will be perfectly enacted. Human nature and the complexity of international affairs prevent things from working out according to our highest ideals, but this is all the more reason to stick to them... it means that one must try to achieve one’s ideals despite the knowledge that perfection is impossible.”
Ignatieff recognizes that war might achieve some valuable results and have a huge humanitarian impact. Ignatieff has stated that “if good results had to wait for good intensions, we would have to wait forever.” I believe this statement to be absolutely correct, the government most utilise what they have in order to achieve their goals.
Ignatieff believes that governments and NGOs need to understand that there are some cases “when war is the only real remedy” He believes that it useless to advertise the significance of human rights unless you are willing to go to battle when they are abused. In my opinion, this is absolutely correct. Governments need to fight for what they believe in. However, once a government interferes they must be determined and committed to their main objectives.
Although Ignatieff supports military action he believes that decision-makers must be aware of the costs of military interference. He believes that is important to interfere only when it is essential. Ignatieff believes that “force has to be a last resort, and there must be a good chance that it will succeed.” These are important beliefs to govern a country by; this is because they will eliminate unnecessary conflict.
Overall I have found Michael Ignatieff’s beliefs enlightening and different. I believe that he is “a creative thinker who has the big ideas necessary to revitalize federal politics and the country’s international standing.”
In my opinion, Ignatieff’s beliefs are commendable, moral, and practical; and I strongly agree with his opinions. This is because Ignatieff’s ultimate goal is the defence of democracy and human rights. He has insisted that they promote peace and allow individuals to flourish. Igatieff believes that democracy reduces the chance of war and it limits radical political parties. He believes that human rights allow individuals to live a respectable life. Ignatieff believes that democracy and human rights are “the fundamental duties that every government has to its citizens”
Michael Ignatieff has insisted that western governments will have to accept and apply the “lesser evil” reasoning in order to stabilize and democratize a country in dire need. The “lesser evil” reasoning can be defined as “When no option is absolutely moral, one can only choose that which is likeliest to minimize harm.” This reasoning may not be the perfect way to govern a country. However, it is realistic. This is because “there may be times when decision-makers face no good choices”
Ignatieff believes that “the messiness of the world makes it impossible to operate by strict and unyielding codes of conduct. The gap between ideals and reality sometimes yawns too wide, and no policy will be perfectly enacted. Human nature and the complexity of international affairs prevent things from working out according to our highest ideals, but this is all the more reason to stick to them... it means that one must try to achieve one’s ideals despite the knowledge that perfection is impossible.”
Ignatieff recognizes that war might achieve some valuable results and have a huge humanitarian impact. Ignatieff has stated that “if good results had to wait for good intensions, we would have to wait forever.” I believe this statement to be absolutely correct, the government most utilise what they have in order to achieve their goals.
Ignatieff believes that governments and NGOs need to understand that there are some cases “when war is the only real remedy” He believes that it useless to advertise the significance of human rights unless you are willing to go to battle when they are abused. In my opinion, this is absolutely correct. Governments need to fight for what they believe in. However, once a government interferes they must be determined and committed to their main objectives.
Although Ignatieff supports military action he believes that decision-makers must be aware of the costs of military interference. He believes that is important to interfere only when it is essential. Ignatieff believes that “force has to be a last resort, and there must be a good chance that it will succeed.” These are important beliefs to govern a country by; this is because they will eliminate unnecessary conflict.
Overall I have found Michael Ignatieff’s beliefs enlightening and different. I believe that he is “a creative thinker who has the big ideas necessary to revitalize federal politics and the country’s international standing.”
