Cosmopolitanism Essay

The Internet is playing a very important role in the evolution of digital technology, but although it has seen remarkable growth over the last few years, its dispersion remains highly asymmetric. It is widely believed that the so called information age will bring radical change and improvement, and countries all over the world are busy with constructing the necessary infrastructure, the "information superhighways," in order to meet the challenges of the information society of the twenty-first century. Kwame Anthony Appiah’s essay “Making Conversation” tell us about human’s conversation

During the period of Colonialism, the English settlers arrived in America from Europe looking for religious freedom, land and the opportunity for wealth. While the Spanish Settlers arrived at Hispaniola unexpectedly, like the English; however, the Spanish did not leave Europe because of religion persecution; rather, they wanted to expand their religious belief to the New Word. While in both the English and the Spanish colonization, the Indigenous people were oppressed and enslaved but the English took a different approach. Thereby, although both the English and the European colonized in order to obtain gold and silver to help their countries wealth, the Spanish explorers took a more forceful method of gaining land.

Appiah spends more than half of his introduction describing how complicated the word cosmopolitanism truly is. He keeps revolving around the overlapping idea that we as a people, are not confined to the limits of what our eyes can see. Our strengths, our experiences and our knowledge comes from more than where we were born or how we were raised. We cannot and should not be limited to those

Appiah defines Cosmopolitanism as being conscious that every citizen that belongs to a community among other communities. The writer wanted to remind the reader the value being of conscious that we are part of a bigger community. Appiah main idea in his work was to start having conversations that discuss cultures, beliefs and values to expand our knowledge about other cultures and not having the excuse of marking another culture’s belief right or wrong. He argues that by using Cosmopolitanism we can create a more united community.

The world’s population is continuously increasing and laws are being made to maintain a global social order. The social order includes, and is not limited to, world peace, free international economy, international trade, and assurance that basic human rights are respected by all nations and humans live a decent life, full of opportunities. This is an ideal that we all aspire to, in a way or another and although we want to create a perfect world, it is impossible to do so because of people’s interests and their own view of “perfection.” We, as humans, are not perfect, and therefore we cannot have a perfect world. Many have tried to create ideas of what would make a perfect society. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle have diligently tried for centuries to establish a well-balanced world in which each individual has their own freedom. More than two thousand years have passed since then and the world is still struggling to find a way to create a harmonious international society. Cosmopolitanism and anti-cosmopolitanism have different ideas on how we can achieve this goal. To me, a combination of the two sounds more achievable. In this paper, I will try to demonstrate that today’s world is a combination of the two and ideas from both will take us a few steps forward towards an international goal.

2. Cosmopolitanism is the view that every single person are world natives (Greek, kosmopolitês) with obligations that stretch out past national fringes. Given the different way of the worldwide town, resilience and comprehension are the axioms. Supporters of cosmopolitanism, going back to the Stoics and Cynics of traditional artifact and in addition to Judaism

In Kwame Appiah’s introductory chapter, Critical Thinking, he delves into the topic of cosmopolitanism, and its necessity within our modern world. Appiah claims that while complete cosmopolitanism may not be obtainable or optimal, partial cosmopolitanism is the ideal model for us to follow. He supports this claim by highlighting that the modern world is expanding rapidly in its population leading to a critical need for conversations to be established amongst ourselves. As a civilization who is divided by borders, social and cultural constructs we have little to no room for the fundamental ethical bonds that we possessed thousands of years ago. Furthermore, not only is our exponentially growing population the issue, but also our blatant

However, as Linklater writes, “contemporary economic and political conditions require support for forms of cosmopolitanism that erode the powers of the state” (2002, pp.142). Thus, in recent years the pursuit of humanitarian intervention as a way to protect and promote human rights has rendered the concept of sovereignty as being conditional upon a state’s willingness to protect those within

Kwame Anthony Appiah is a philosopher who deserves great recognition in this age. After earning his Ph.D at Cambridge University he went on to teach at many Ivy League schools. He wrote the book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers which touches on many of the controversial topics of our present time and connects them to past problems that now seem to have a clear solution. Appiah 's discussions of various topics point out many of the difficulties faced by the HIV/AIDS victims, who are gone into more detail by Helen Epstein, author of "AIDS, Inc.," and the ordeals that women have been put through in order to escape the gruesome rituals that have been required for their marriage.

Global Politics The study of international or rather global politics, seeks to provide an account of politics in the broadest domain. The domain of international politics in the twenty-first century is characterised by the increasing number of actors pursuing common and personal interests. It is largely due to the globalised, interdependent nature of the current international political environment that the concepts of sovereignty and power deserve further evaluation.

Human rights are a strong point of contention in the context of ethics and global politics. This is due to the vast diversity of perspectives that exist within the international world system – which makes it increasingly to difficult to define a truly global conception of human rights today. At the core of human rights perspectives is the suggestion that there should be a ‘basic’ notion of universal human rights. However, this is widely contested. In this essay I will critically interpret the notion of human rights universality in the contemporary realm of global politics. Observing the merits and downfalls of a universal notion of human rights, I will open the concept to challenge by grappling with the definition of ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ human rights. In diverse world system characterized by transnational cooperation I will address the fundamental question: is there a human ‘right to politics’, or more precisely, do universal human rights require democracy? And more importantly, can universal human rights be upheld in the international world system? In conclusion, I suggest that there is in fact a universal notion of human rights, but whether or not it can be realised in the context of the diverse and dynamic world system is questionable.

Multicultural literature is a way of increasing cultural awareness. Through multicultural books many young readers are able to make a connection with their own culture

The oxford dictionary describes human rights as “a right which is believed to belong to every person” (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Until the late 1940s, human rights were simply an ideal or concept, but the newly formed United Nations declaration of human rights clearly set out in statute a human beings rights. The late 1940s was a time of political turbulence, with Western powers wielding huge amounts of control in organisations such as the United Nations. In this essay I will argue that although Western powers may have attempted to deliver human rights to the wider world, they have for the most part failed. Instead, most notably America and Britain have been involved in endless human rights violations. The United Nations doctrine set out in 1948 has failed to convince countries with strict religious doctrine to embrace human rights for all individuals. Even the European Court of human rights has been accused of making decisions which many view as stripping religious minorities of certain human rights. The West may have attempted to create a global community who cherishes human rights, however this cannot occur until Western powers themselves honour human rights. They must also attempt to understand that certain non-Western countries with differing religious and political beliefs do not share the Western notion of ‘human rights’ so vehemently

Cosmopolitanism does have its limits in achieving its aims. It is necessary that one tracks the historical roots of cosmopolitanism to understand what visions it sets out to propose for IR. In Hellenic era, cosmopolitanism finds its meaning when Alexandrian intermarriage took place (Russel, 1945: 220), introducing the concept of ‘mankind as a whole’. Similar notion came into being in Stoicism in which people, apart from their own local identity, are united under a world citizenship (Nussbaum, 2010: 156). Kant, in the eighteenth century, furthered expounded on cosmopolitanism by suggesting a rule of cosmopolitan law and universal liberties (Held, 2010: 3).

In the article “Nationalism, Patriotism, and Cosmopolitanism in an Age of Globalization” author Robert Audi (2009) identifies different levels of nationalism and cosmopolitanism and how they can affect globalization. Audi categorizes nationalism and cosmopolitanism as being extreme, moderate, and minimal.