ABSTRACT
What is cosmopolitanism? On one widely used account of the term, cosmopolitanism rests on the idea that every person has global stature as the ultimate unit of moral concern, and is therefore entitled to equal respect and consideration no matter what her citizenship status or other affiliations happen to be (Pogge 1992). Appealing to this premise of moral equality, cosmopolitanism guides the individual outwards from local obligations, and prohibits those obligations from crowding out responsibilities to distant others. The borders of states and other boundaries considered to restrict the scope of justice should not function as roadblocks in appreciating our responsibilities to all in the global community (Brock & Brighouse 2005).1 But if this is what cosmopolitanism is, surely all ethically defensible views must be cosmopolitan in flavour? In order to locate the points of tension between cosmopolitans and those resistant to such approaches, we need to cover more ground. In this chapter we begin by surveying some distinctions typically drawn among kinds of
cosmopolitanisms, before surveying the diverse accounts of cosmopolitan justice. As much discussion between cosmopolitans and critics is still heavily influenced by John Rawls’s views on international justice, we cover some of that disagreement next. We then explore views about the content of cosmopolitan duties of justice, especially whether the duties should focus on eliminating inequality or some other standard central to a decent life. Here we also examine the prominent debate between cosmopolitans and defenders of statist accounts of global justice, especially the position of egalitarian statists who believe that state borders do mark off some relevant boundary which affects what we owe one another. We examine such arguments and some important cosmopolitan responses to them. We then explore some common fears concerning cosmopolitanism and how they can be addressed, such as whether or not cosmopolitan commitments are necessarily in tension with other affiliations people typically have and how we should deal with issues concerning a perceived lack of authority in the global domain. Finally, we look briefly at how the concern with feasibility has led some to take up the challenge of devising public policy that is cosmopolitan in outlook.
