Critical Thinking By Kwame Appiah

Humankind would be a better place if we were all just citizens of the world. In Martha Nussbaum’s “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism” she argues whether children should be taught in education to be patriotic or cosmopolitan. Nussbaum’s definition of cosmopolitanism is a person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world. Nussbaum begins her argument by raising questions about education and how students ought to be taught that hunger in third world countries are problems of global problems and not the countries problem. She says “We should regard out deliberations as, first and foremost, deliberations about human problems of people in particular concrete situations, not problems growing out of a national

Individuals of the same ethnic background share the same culture a factor that explains that there, as many cultures as there are ethnic backgrounds across the world. Globalization has, however, led to interaction of people from varied cultural backgrounds. Because of the interaction, globalization has been accused of limiting cultural diversity. It is, however, not the case in reality. The purpose of this paper is to analyze some of the factors that justify that globalization has not limited cultural diversity as its critics say. Thus, globalization should not be viewed as a hindrance to cultural diversity because the best subject of moral concern should be the individual person and not the nation, community or the society.

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

All around the world today, there is a lot of tension revolving around concepts of morality. In Moral Disagreement by Kwame Anthony Appiah, Appiah writes about differing values and morals around the world and within our society. He points out, “we aren’t the only people who have the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad; every society, it seems, has terms that correspond to these thin concepts” (658). However, these concepts are not always the same with each other in every society. In the same way that not everyone in our society believes in the same moral concepts. Unfortunately, it is these disagreements that often separate us as people. Forming different cultures, large and small, throughout the world. This is not a bad thing, but it does separate us as a race, leaving us to care more for one group of people rather than humanity as a whole. In Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, by Martha Nussbaum, Nussbaum suggest that a way to fix this problem, and to become a cosmopolitan person, is to teach students in our education systems more of different cultures throughout the world. Yet not only should we learn to accept other cultures and their beliefs, but we should also educate ourselves to accept everybody we meet, giving respect to them as individuals, if we ever truly want to become a citizen of the world.

Through the lenses of preservationists, culture is authentic, carries traditions that keep historical ancestry alive, and is threatened by “cultural imperialism”. From a cosmopolitan perspective, culture is the freedom of choice, made up of multiple values and ideas that allow individuals to reinvigorate its uniqueness in an ever changing society. In “The Case for Contamination”, published by the New York Times Magazine, Kwame Anthony Appiah addresses the concern regarding the diminishment of cultural identity in poor countries by introducing the idea of cosmopolitanism: being free from cultural preordains and engaging in a pluralist society. Appiah endorses globalization and explains that resisting cultural interconnection will perhaps trap people in a stagnating society and avert it from achieving a pluralistic environment. He claims that cosmopolitanism enables individuals to adopt foreign culture based on how they see fit within their cultural context, and without “structuring the consciousness” and detaching people from traditional beliefs.

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.

In the pursuit to gain the greatest understanding and respect of human rights projects and global social justice cosmopolitanism is necessary. Looking at cosmopolitism’s roots, features and limits through the lenses of authors Fine, Held and Calhoun to further address the importance of this ideal regardless of its weaknesses. Following the debate of whether critics are right about cosmopolitanisms liberal biases undermining its critical potential will be discussed, to suggest where cosmopolitanism needs adjustments in order to progress. Lastly, this paper will consider the idea that cosmopolitan ideals are more necessary then ever given the resurgence of nationalist and isolationist politics worldwide. Through an overall analysis of

The word cosmopolitanism, derived from Greek, means that humans are part of a global civilization. “Cosmos” signifies the earth, and “polis” means city or state. The Enlightenment philosophers Emmanuel Kant and Baron de Montesquieu interpreted the idea slightly differently but fundamentally agreed that it entails the communication and exchange of varied cultures, especially through commerce. Cosmopolitism is not to be confused with legal pluralism, discussed by Lauren Benton and Lisa Ford, which is the continuation of numerous, somewhat independent legal structures inside one region existing simultaneously. Though they seem similar at first glance, legal pluralism has been proven to be a failure, while

This earth that all humans live on is becoming increasingly globalized, and the question often arises of what this means when analyzing the world through an ethical perspective. A globalized world most definitely demands the need for a cosmopolitan ethic at its most basic definition, despite the term being something that has been around long before globalization become a relevant term. Hutchings defined cosmopolitanism in her book Global Ethics, on page 10: “Cosmopolitanism, essentially any form of moral universalism that takes the human individual as the foundation of moral value.” Throughout this paper, I will discuss why globalization demands a cosmopolitan point of view through the three branches of globalization: political, social and economic.

One philosopher who aligns himself with Appiah’s general positive and optimistic direction is Thomas Pogge, a professor of both philosophy and international relations with Yale University, though large elements of his theories also line up with the theory of Hardt and Negri. Pogge’s philosophy concerning cosmopolitanism serves as both a methodological middle ground between Empire and Appiah’s cosmopolitanism and a philosophical synthesis between the different approaches to increased globalism. One way in which Pogge does this is to establish within his methodology several standards and parameters within which he sets his own philosophy. The first is a distinction which he makes between moral and legal philosophy: “legal cosmopolitanism is committed to a concrete political ideal of a global order under which all persons have equivalent legal rights and duties—[people] are fellow citizens of a universal republic. Moral cosmopolitanism holds that all persons stand in certain moral relations to one another: [people] are required to respect one another’s status as ultimate units of moral concern” (Pogge 356). In this way, Pogge’s approach is very Kantian, as it constitutes treating all people as ends-in-themselves, instead of merely as means, which corresponds with Appiah’s own assertions about the basic dignity of all people and the obligation to relive suffering out of a sense of shared humanity. Pogge’s own approach falls under moral cosmopolitanism, as opposed to legal,

In the book Things Fall Apart, there are many instances in which simple values and cosmopolitan ways would have changed the story, likely for the better. Cosmopolitanism is the idea that all humans are in the same community in the form of certain shared morals that we have. The author of Cosmopolitanism, Kwame Appiah, believes that all humans share a certain set of values, including the belief that everybody matters. In the book, there are many unneeded conflicts, and heartless acts. I am going to point out a few events that occur in the story in which cosmopolitanism would have changed the outcome of the situation at hand.

In the novel, Things Fall Apart, power and dignity are very critical aspects of the main character, Okonkwo. These traits, however, were brought up in Okonkwo in the wrong way. Okonkwo suppresses his emotions under a violent image of power and pride. His traits can be demonstrated through the events happening in his life, which include his upbringing of putting hard work and dedication as his first priorities. He acquires a large amount of wealth that he puts towards his family, and expects his children to strive towards the same goal. This expectation represents Okonkwo’s defiance of embracing any ideologies that aren’t his own. In the novel, Cosmopolitanism, the concept represented is to engage readers to understand the similarities and differences that are shared amongst people in the world. The author, Kwame Appiah, states that cosmopolitanism “begins with the simple idea that in the human community, as in national communities, we need to develop habits of coexistence: conversation in its older meaning, of living together, association” (Appiah). The main idea is to learn and understand how the people in the world choose to live their lives by accepting all different kinds of cultures. The basic theme that is found in the novel is acceptance. Comparing Cosmopolitanism to Things Fall Apart can work if there is a connection between Okonkwo’s story and being cosmopolitan. His life could have turned out differently if he would have had acceptance instead of rejection in his

The first definition or the basic concept of cosmopolitanism was given by the Greek philosopher Diogenes. His reply to the question of where did he come from was that he is the citizen of the world. The concept of the entire world as a single community and the shared existence of all its inhabitants were established around 300 B.C.. This is where all other forms and the varied definitions of cosmopolitanism take their source of inspiration from. Cosmopolitanism is a state of mutual existence and citizenship in a single community regardless of the political allegiance. This community can be formed on different basis and this particular difference is what gives cosmopolitanism its various connotations and meanings; the community can be formed

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.