Julian Holmes Wilson Phil 302 12/15/11 Sergio: The Moral Perfectionist?

Sergio Vieira de Mello, the god of international relations and conflict resolution is quite clearly the perfect example of Cavells Moral Perfectionism. I claim this with great strength for it is obvious to me that Vieira de Mello is a man who owns his words. Sergio went into each mission at a lose finding his way into the hearts of the people he met through his cities of words. His training in philosophy only strengthens this notion, but it by no means defined him or his thought in the field. Sergio is a man of experience, pulling from each of his lifes endeavors to form stronger backing for his actions. It is hard for me to pull one specific chapter out to examine for it is not so much in the specifics but in the whole. The reason that I believe Sergio so closely exemplifies the moral perfectionism that Cavell lays out is due to the nature of how he deals with conflict. Sergio was all about making relationships with people that didnt easily make friends. At the heart of the Cavellian concepts is the complexity of making friends. What makes a true friend? What allows friends to communicate freely? Sergio seemed to have the gift of understanding friendship. He knew that the UN would only be able to complete their goals if they befriended their enemies. I think oddly, Sergios main enemy was the United States. The US (ironically only one letter away from the UN) managed to be one of the most disruptive forces on Sergios ability to work in the field. No matter whether it was in Kosovo, Lebanon or Iraq, the bureaucracy in Washington was always questioning the way in which Sergio worked. It only became more interesting when the US directly asked Sergio to help in Iraq, and while Sergio did not like the conflict at heart, he still felt that it was his duty to negotiate within the world village. I want to place emphasis on the concept of duty as Kant was extremely influential in the way that Sergio operated. I believe that Sergio very greatly believed in the fundamental aspect of the categorical imperative. It was clear that he wanted to help form the global world into a place that accepted others for themselves and would not criticize them for their own beliefs. I find it clear now, that Sergios path through his career very directly shows how far away the world is from the Kingdom of Ends. Though, as many thought experiments, the Kingdom is a very difficult phenomenon to reach. It relies on the necessity of all beings having rationality and this is something that is fundamentally impossible in the human race (or maybe in the universe). I feel that Sergio understood this flaw in Kants thinking and thus used it not as a goal but as inspiration. It was in this way of applying theory to the real world that allowed Sergio to be so vastly influential in the places he visited. Though the interesting side of the debate it is not the way in which Sergio used his own theories or the theory of others, but rather in how clearly Sergio portrays Cavells theories and mannerisms. Sergio, while contemplative of his words and the way he spoke, was very much a man of digression. It was not in a tangential way of talking, but rather in the digression of human interaction. Sergio was often finding himself behind schedule from talking to people and experiencing their worlds, but this never worried him for he felt the answers would come from the people he befriended. This is analogous to the way that Cavell views friendship. It needs to

be a learning experience from both ends. The United Nations, and especially Sergio, would never have been as productive as they were if it was not for their understanding of human interaction. Throughout the reading we start to understand this nature in which Sergio manages to pull information out of experiences. He wants to be very close to the people he is helping. If he was distanced there would be nothing real about his work, it would be like how the coalition deals with issues. Sergio is quick to criticize the way in which Washington deals with problems. He always notions their ability to distance themselves from the conflict, for instance in the Green Zone in Iraq. Sergio is looking for a way into the lives of the people he is trying to help and the US is simply looking at the problem. It is in this sense that Sergio is all about the conversation. He is looking to conversate with the individuals in conflict, for only through the process of discussion can one start to understand the other. One must know their enemy in order to help their allies. Though I believe there is something more distinct in the way Sergio acts than simply saying he knows his enemy. I believe that Sergio is able to so easily diffuse conflict by never considering one side as the enemy. While others may discuss the situation in this way, Sergio would rather think of them as future friends. He comes into each mission in an effort to make a good impression. He prepares each of his statements as if he is trying to lure a woman, and thus we are back in the remarriage comedies. When we pull from a real world example, and one as perfect as Sergio, it becomes much easier to understand why Cavell pulls so much analogy from remarriage comedies. When one considers the implication of creating a moral code or ethic there are many factors that need to be in place to make it work for the whole. Though if we are writing a moral ethic for the human race and globalized world, it would only make sense to look into one of the most moralistic debates in real life, love. What does love entail and how does a couple fall in love? If we think in analogies terms and exemplify moral conflict by way of marriage, we can see many fundamental aspects of what causes a crisis. One of the most important aspects that causes conflict is miscommunication. This can be in the form of lies, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misguided thought meant to mislead the other. This is a vastly complex problem in the human condition. What makes one want to mislead the other? When we debate morals we are often conflicted not on the morals themselves, but the reasons for why people fail to follow them. I believe this is the conquest that Sergio was on, to find the reasons for moral and ethical blind sight. It is a painful process to undergo the investigation of the human condition for every time you feel one step closer you are pushed away by a counter example. We are not creatures pure in thought. It is in the evolution of our powerful brains that we have come to imagine things that we would hope to never find in real life, but when it can be imagined we often find it to be exemplified. Just as we envisioned space travel and succeeded, we can envision moral corruption and find it throughout the world. It is just as easy to have good moral thought as it is to have ill intent. Then how does one have a conversation about ill intent? It is hard to justify one thought over another without the conversation between friends. Whether this friend is your lover, your wife/husband, your enemy, your professor, your colleague, your brother does not matter. It is rather in the ability to conversate about the topic with others that allows for any type of

agreement. We can only agree on something being ill intent if we can convince the person that their intent is ill. This was the mission that Sergio was on, convincing his friends of their real intents. He needs to understand the way the people are thinking and acting within the crisis itself. Only when he has finally put himself into their worlding does he use moral perfectionism. And thus the only way to place himself within their world is by conversation. I find that it is oddly ironic (no matter how sad the loss is, there can still be irony), that Sergio was to die in a country that he felt so anxious within. This may be a strange claim as the book does not attribute Sergio to being all that anxiety ridden, but it was during the Iraq chapter that we see his vulnerable self emerge. While it is no doubt that Sergio is a skilled negotiator, speaker and political tactician, his true power lay in his mastery of language. When in Iraq he lost his closest friend (language) due to not knowing Arabic. He was quick to negate the issue by surrounding himself with people (friends) who could speak the language and would do what he said, though it was never quite the same. The Kingdom of Ends is a daunting vision and as we see, Sergio was directly afflicted by its implausibility. To obtain any sort of Universal Moral Perfectionism (such as the Kingdom of Ends) is a near impossibility in the complex global ecosystem. Even someone as skilled as Sergio was squashed by the new worlding that he found himself within. He was engaging the evil, but this time the evil won. Sergio was a patient man and if things had gone his way, he likely would still be here today. Sergio was trapped in this time, but the time did not suite his ends. He was placed in many regions around this world where his insight in language allowed him to solve implausible situations, and only through conversation was he able to negotiate moral perfectionism. Cavell is onto something, and with Sergio as a real life example, it is only clearer to me that moral perfectionism has phenomenological potential in the breaking down of moral and ethical crisis. Once one has understood, by way of language, the root problems within the crisis, which stems out of the emotional and psychological complexity of human thought and action, one can make a connection, a relation, a relationship. Once this friendship is created, further conversation allows for the walls around the cities of words to be broken down, allowing for new horizons. This theory can be used broadly, across many complex relations in life, and thus Cavell provides philosophical truth.