Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2023
I will argue that cosmopolitanism is a compelling approach to a philosophical allegiance to all of humanity, the ideology is not restricted to geographical groups, religious, ethnic, or cultural groups compared to the particularist interest argument. I will also cover the ‘law of equality’ in which all universal agents are measured with global moral worth above family, race, culture, or nationalist circles. I will also telescope cosmopolitanism from ‘the Stoics’ point of view in which every human begin is measured under the term “citizens of the world” (Widdows, 2011, p.71). As cosmopolitanism also shapes what Martha Neussbaum claims: “One owes allegiance to the worldwide community of human beings and this affiliation should constitute a primary allegiance” (Brock, 2009, p.9). For this reason, cosmopolitanism is more compelling since its main ideological crux does not deracinate liberty and freedom as seen with apartheid nationalism such as the Zionist model found in Israel; which seeks to build upon a ‘subjective feeling;’ that only appeals to the philology or biology of the spirit social contract other than a cosmopolitan model that is independent of inward-looking nationalism (Smith, 1983, pp.10-12).
International Studies Review, 2009
2014
This essay explores the meaning of cosmopolitanism. Doing so, it first discusses the historical roots and present context of the concept. It then explores four distinct cosmopolitan position — that is, legal cosmopolitanism, social-justice cosmopolitanism, monistic cosmopolitanism, and ethical cosmopolitanism. It indicates that among the four versions of cosmopolitanism, social-justice cosmopolitanism is the most promising one. THE PURPOSE of this essay is to elucidate for a Chinese audience the meaning of the European expression cosmopolitanism. 1 The essay briefly discusses the historical roots and present context of the word and then outlines four distinct cosmopolitan positions that have been defended in Western political thought. The most promising among these positions, and one that I am personally identified with, is social-justice cosmopolitanism. Its basic idea is that social institutions should be designed to be responsive to the equally-weighted needs and interests of all...
Cosmopolis: A Review of Cosmopolitics, 2013
Review Essay: Thom Brooks (ed.), The Global Justice Reader; Gillian Brock, Global Justice: a Cosmopolitan Account; Lea Ypi. Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency
De Gruyter, 2011
Although Kant's cosmopolitanism is not related with the distributive issues of global justice, I will try to show that it seems more consistent than Pogge's cosmopolitan theory of a vertical dispersion of sovereignty.
2013
The article deals with a pivotal conceptual distinction employed in philosophical discussions about global justice. Cosmopolitans claim that arguing from the perspective of moral cosmopolitanism does not necessarily entail defending a global coercive political authority, or a "world-state", and suggest that ambitious political and economic (social) goals implied in moral cosmopolitanism may be achieved via some kind of non-hierarchical, dispersed and/or decentralised institutional arrangements. I argue that insofar as moral cosmopolitans retain "strong" moral claims, this is an untenable position, and that the goals of cosmopolitan justice, as explicated by its major proponents, require nothing less than a global state-like entity with coercive powers. My background ambition is to supplement some existing works questioning the notion of "governance without government" with an argument that goes right to the conceptual heart of cosmopolitan thought. To embed my central theoretical argument in real-world developments, I draw on some recent scholarship regarding the nature of international organizations, European Union, or transnational democratization. Finally I suggest that only after curbing moral aspirations in the first place can a more self-consciously moderate position be constructed, one that will carry practical and feasible implications for institutional design. For download here is an "intermediate" version, i.e. including the main body of the argument, but before final amendments and updates following the peer review. For full reader enjoyment I recommend getting hold of the print (published) version of the article, to which a link is provided below (CUP/IT website)!
It would be more accurate to describe cosmopolitanism and anti-cosmopolitanism as points on a spectrum of universalism rather than as diametrically opposed extremes that represent a major gulf between universalism and particularism. Both cosmopolitans and anti-cosmopolitans share a worldview and way of thinking that is based on the principles of equality and liberty. Cosmopolitans and anti-cosmopolitans differ greatly from one another, although they have a similar lexicon of equality and freedom, albeit with diverse interpretations of these ideals. Only in terms of those pillars' scope, content, and interpretation can notable disparities emerge. Universalists in morals are cosmopolitans. They contend that morality should be viewed as a single society among humans, with universally applicable laws. Cosmopolitans contend that morality is a global concept and that everyone should be able to follow a really moral code. Cosmopolitanism is, at its most fundamental, the moral predicate that all individuals ought to be treated equally, regardless of their gender, color, ability, or other characteristics. Cosmopolitans place a strong emphasis on broad cross-border positive (like justice and assistance) and negative (like non-harming) responsibilities. National borders, according to anticosmopolitans, offer significant ethical restraints. Opponents of cosmopolitanism contend that people should be viewed as a collection of distinct groups, each with its own morality and no real shared moral principles. This paper presents a broad summary of cosmopolitan theory and centers on the central tenet that all people belong to one moral community. It outlines many interpretations of cosmopolitanism and explores their similarities and differences. Particularly cosmopolitans stress some universal aspects of morality and moral knowledge, whilst anti-cosmopolitans base their argument on the notion that morality is a cultural construct. Because of this, this paper tackles a number of important issues that may initially appear to have nothing to do with international ethics. Additionally, it discusses the anti-cosmopolitan stances of nationalism, realism, and communitarianism. One of the main points of this paper is to show that, despite their significant differences, they may all be seen as belonging to the same anti-cosmopolitan tradition. It shows that the three are derived from communitarian moral epistemologies, emphasizing the social or community source of moral and ethical knowledge. As a result, it highlights the limitations of cosmopolitans' global theories of justice. A few observations on the shortcomings of the natural obligations argument and the anti-cosmopolitan stance round up this paper.
La Savoie et ses voisins dans l'histoire de l'Europe, 2010
Acta historica universitatis Klaipedensis, 2023
Zbornik Odseka za pedagogiju, 2023
der Freitag, 2024
Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1996
Early-stage heart failure disease prediction with deep learning approach, 2023
Politeia - História e Sociedade, 2020
Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Y học, 2021
Art History, 1991
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2005
22nd International Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development Proceedings
arXiv (Cornell University), 2020
Laprak Dasar-Dasar Perlindungan Tanaman, 2019
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 1997
Jurnal Riset dan Inovasi Peternakan (Journal of Research and Innovation of Animals)
American Journal of Trade and Policy, 2019
The Journal of Pain, 2011
Metal-based Drugs, 1997