Philosophy And International Relations With Yale University

Prior to diving into the thoughts and explanations of Appiah, one must become aware that the commonplace definition of Cosmopolitanism is, “belonging to all the world; not limited to just one part of the world.” (dictionary.com) With that being said, the author of Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, defines the idea of cosmopolitanism as this: The success of international exchange is a product of the acknowledgment of different cultures and their viewpoints.

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.

1.Appiah shields a point of view of "liberal cosmopolitanism" in view of the introduce of all-inclusive human nobility—the possibility that "every individual has duties to each other." He demands that this viewpoint is altogether perfect with particularistic personalities and underwrites the estimation of responsibilities to nearby loyalties and groups—even direct types of patriotism.

While cosmopolitanism can be viewed as a concise concept, it can also be viewed to have two different strands. The first strand, as Appiah explains, focuses on the obligations we have to one another as universal citizens of the cosmos; obligations that stretch beyond family or local community. The second strand is more intensive stating that not only are we obligated to those whom we share nothing in common with but also find ourselves accountable for knowing other individuals on a more profound level of their practices and belief systems. Yet, while there do exist these two varying strands Appiah also acknowledges that it is not desirable nor probable that as a collective population we want to live under a single model of living. All the while, he briefly states that these two varying strands of the same descending concept may conflict in certain instances. Those who advocate fiercely for the cause of unification and understanding were often mocked for their own hypocritical actions.

The concept of being a good international citizen departs from this view and has us believe “that states should be cognisant of and accountable to in the conduct of their international politics and foreign policy…” (Langlois, pp. 221). However, there are many barriers to the creation of this cosmopolitan world order and its promotion of human rights. At the core of international relations theory, it is held that all states are considered sovereign. The state has the authority to govern within its territory without the interference of outside states or actors.

Amidst the global attempts to establish worldwide peace on a moral ground, there are still several events where international security, peace, and justice are sacrificed for national benefits, as, for example, seen in the United States’ nonintervention policy, which prioritizes national sovereignty. In his book Moral Man and Immoral Society, Reinhold Niebuhr indicated that each nation-state had a “collective egoism” that was beyond moral or rational explanation. Although the book was published in 1932, well before any realization of human rights protection law or organization, Niebuhr’s message remains true to the present context: the contemporary culture, religious or secular, still fails to recognize the collective egoism in human institutions. His argument regarding the dynamics of power remains relevant. However, there is a sign of hope, as there are numerous organizations aimed to reduce each nation’s collective egoism and emphasizes why a

He asserted that cultural consumers have the ability to “decide for themselves what they do and do not approve of”. He viewed the idea that Western culture had the ability to “[leave] behind another cultural automaton as it moves on” as “deeply condescending” and that people of other cultures are not “dupes” and “blank slates”(Appiah 35). Appiah also addressed the concern of cultural imperialism by stating that the “Western-educated bourgeoisie” of non-Western cultures are those who resist Western ideologies and bring change unto their cultures (Appiah 35). Appiah’s claim that cultural consumers have a choice and that people with Western education tend to challenge and dispute Western ideas are valid. However, they are incomplete. His claim dismissed the innate human need to conform, underestimated the strong presence of Western culture, and disregarded that the majority of people in developing nations lack of access to Western education.

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

dear and gentle mother will brain the both of us if you are not in

Hannah Arendt examines an increasingly global community and the resulting cosmopolitan law that helps govern it. Above all else, international law values and protects the sovereignty of the nation-state, which has proven problematic following the failure of the nation-state during the two world wars, a failure, Arendt states, that led to the rise of totalitarianism and a resulting disregard for human dignity. In this, Arendt discusses one of the major contradictions of the nation-state: the indivisible nature of human rights and membership within a nation-state and cosmopolitan belief, leaving the stateless as lacking the very “right to have rights”i. Those stateless people are therefore vulnerable, deprived of human rights through their lack

“A global citizen is someone who identifies with being part of an emerging world community and whose actions contribute to building this community’s values and practices.” According to Global Citizens Initiative, a nonprofit global social enterprise, this is what it means to be a global citizen. It is necessary to understand the defining factors of a global citizen in order to understand Johansson Dahre’s quarrels about the human rights discussion. Dahre argues that there is no middle ground between Universalism and cultural relativism. Thorough analysis and critique of this dichotomy manifests a divergent human rights theory, relative universalism. Dahre’s

It is unbelievable to think that an action of what a person does in the present, can either lead to nothing or it can become a catastrophe event. In Things Fall Apart, Achebe writes about the Nigerian culture through the events that happen to the main character which is Okonkowo. In Cosmopolitism, Appiah writes about the different values, morals, and cultures people in the world have and how people can live together despite having differences. The event that could have had a different outcome was when the Abmae elders decided to execute the white missionary man and later on the group of white people massacred the Abmae village. If the characters in the event were more cosmopolitan with the concept of understanding each other and uncalled-for punishment, then the event could have been a different outcome. When one applies Appiah’s idea of understanding each other and uncalled-for punishment in Cosmopolitism to the event in Things Fall Apart, the event changes to when the elders would not have executed the white missionary man and therefore there would be no massacre from the group of white people.

“No flags… something more interesting,” (186) says Julius choosing a stamp at the post office. What he is delivering is Kwame Anthony Appiah’s, Cosmopolitanism, but what this detail delivers to the text is important context to one of the subtle themes of Open City: Cosmopolitanism. With globalization and thus increasing access to different countries and cultures, there is a question of whether or not cosmopolitanism is a desirable outlook to move toward. For Appiah, there are two “strands” of cosmopolitanism– one strand pushes past nationalism in the way it opens up the conception of community. This not only means conceiving of ourselves as citizens of the world, but extending our duties and obligations beyond those immediate to us (pg number). One might think of Peter Singer’s famous essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” wherein he argues that we have a great moral obligation to worldwide humanitarian efforts, despite our physical