A Critique of Cosmopolitanism in relation to its application to Global Ethics issues
by Bruce Gahir, on Feb 13, 2018 2:50:32 PM
The main question when considering issues in global ethics from a political perspective is: what are the bounds of justice and morality? For example, do political borders, such as state, regional or national bor- ders, have any bearings on our moral duties? Do we have more duties to those whom we have more in common with, for instance, fellow nationals? If moral duties are influenced by political and social structures and boundaries, then are current systems fit for the purpose?
We start by considering moral cosmopolitanism, which, as its name proposes, holds that there is an "ethical sphere" that rises above national or social limits and subsequently that ethical commitments have a global aspect. The term "cosmopolitan" originates with the Stoics and is derived from "cosmos" meaning "world" and "polis" meaning "state" or "city". The Stoics, from whom the term "stoical" is derived, were a school of ancient Athenian philosophers founded in the third century BCE, who argued for universal reason of nature (logos). In keeping with this view of nature and humans' part in it, the Stoics claimed that they were citizens of the world, and identified themselves with, and owed allegiance to, all humanity, not just their local geo- graphical, religious, ethnic or cultural group. The "Stoic's" conviction that they were "citizens of the world" still captures the essence of cosmopolitanism; they all considered the ethics to be global in nature with an emphasis of their group having to extend responsibilities across borders.
The first defining feature of cosmopolitanism is that the moral sphere is global with responsibilities that tend to emphasise actions motivated by responsibilities that extend beyond national borders. The second is the accentuation on the individual: the conviction that the individual has moral worth. The third ele- ment of cosmopolitanism is fairness: all people have a measure of good worth. These three elements are standard in different definitions of cosmopolitanism. The final, fourth feature of cosmopolitanism, which is little discussed in political theory (perhaps because it is assumed), is that it focuses on the political realm.
The third and fourth criteria of cosmopolitanism imply that it is global in scope and tends to consider politi- cal structures and institutions. Its main concerns are to address the relationships of groups and institutions as well as individuals, and in addition it focuses on structural networks and frameworks of governance as well as individual duties. Therefore, as well as focusing on the rightness and wrongness of individual actions, cosmopolitanism considers the political and practical aspects of carrying out such actions. For example, cosmopolitans will consider how rights are best attained and how duties can be fulfilled and needs met as well as what those rights and duties might be. Accordingly, it is no surprise that cosmopolitans concern themselves primarily with the institutions that are responsible for ensuring moral practices and political and legal mechanisms by which justice can be attained.
Cosmopolitan theorists therefore focus on the content and weight of obligations across state boundaries. In moral discourse the focus is on duties of individual agents to other individual agents; whereas in political discourse obligations are seen particularly in terms of political structures, hence the aim being to combine moral theories with political theories.
These four claims commit you not to a position where all obligations of justice are global, but rather to a more minimal view that there are at least some global obligations that go beyond national borders. This view is sometimes termed as "weak cosmopolitanism", by contrast "strong cosmopolitanism" holds that the global sphere is the primary moral sphere. On this view, all duties of justice are motivated from a global perspective and national or regional borders are considered to be morally and ethically insignificant from a global perspective. For a strong cosmopolitan, principles of justice that apply within society or nation should apply globally as there are no local or community deciding factors concerning who gets what in terms of goods, resources or rights.
This extract first appeared in the Prague College CRIS Bulletin, issue 14 (2016). To read the rest of the article, and browse through other research done by students and lecturers, please click here:
