Cosmopolitanism questions the moral (and potentially political) legitimacy of state boundaries, treating them as arbitrary. As such, it insists we have responsibilities to those beyond the borders of our state. Our moral concerns must have a universal basis that transcends state borders.
This cosmopolitan ethic is often posited as contrary to a more state-based or localised (“communitarian”) sense of moral responsibility to those within our state borders. Hence political boundaries of the sovereign state take on a moral flavour and set our boundaries of responsibility and hence belonging. Our legal responsibilities to our fellow citizens are of primary importance and form a litmus test of our loyalty to the state as good citizens.
Cosmopolitanism as “humanitarian obligation” (at 200) beyond the legal obligations of citizenship.
But many cosmopolitans are happy to incorporate this communitarian spirit within their broader cosmopolitan sense of moral responsibility. Charity beginning at home does not exclude charity abroad. There should be no conflict between a sense of responsibility to the state and that to those residing outside the state. The authors cite Onara O’Neill who is able to “incorporate the particularist special obligation virtue ethics which motivate communitarians” (at 197) with a vision of cosmopolitan virtue beyond the state. She does this by distinguishing between perfect and imperfect obligations.
Although critical of cosmopolitans, her approach produces arguably similar outcomes to Appiah and his notion of rooted cosmopolitanism. It is also closer to my formulation of umma but very dissimilar to the jihadist notion of umma.
Boucher, David International Justice in Bellamy,
Richard & Mason, Andrew (2003) Political concepts, Manchester
University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment