Abstract
Cosmopolitans, from the Stoics through to Kant, have argued in favor of a universal moral realm. Despite the division of humanity into separate historically constituted communities, it remains possible to identify one self with, and have a moral concern for, humanity. To have such a concern requires that no one is prima facie excluded from the realm of moral duty. The most sophisticated formulation of this fundamental value occurs in Kant’s “categorical imperative” requiring that we “treat others not merely as a means but always as an end in themselves.” I The major tasks of cosmopolitan theory are to defend this universalism, to develop an account of an alternative political order based on it, and to explore what it might mean tofollow Kant’s imperative in a world divided into separate communities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Andrew Linklater (1990) Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London: Macmillan), 100.
Martha Nussbaum (ed.) (1966) For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism (Boston: Beacon Press), 133.
See, for e.g., Edward Hallett Carr (1939) The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919–1939 (London: Macmillan);
Hans Morgenthau (1960) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace 3rd edn. (New York: Knopf);
Michael Walzer (1994) Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (University of Notre Dame);
Alasdair Macintyre (1990) “Is Patriotism a Virtue?,” in M. Rosen and J. Wolff (eds.) The Oxford Raeder in Political Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press);
Robert Jackson (2000) The Global Covenant (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Charles Beitz (1979) Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton University Press);
Peter Singer (1972) “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Philosophy ad Public Affairs 1 (1), 229–243;
Thomas Pogge (1989) Realizing Rawls (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press);
Brian Barry (1989) Theories of justice: a Treatise on Social justice vol. 1 (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf);
Brian Barry (1999) “International Society from a Cosmopolitan Perspective,” in D. Maple and T. Nardin (eds.) International Society (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 144–163;
Brian Barry (1990) “Statism and Nationalism: a Cosmopolitan Critique,” in I. Shapiro and L. Brilmaye (eds.) Global justice: NOMOS vol. XLI (New York: New York University Press), 12–66;
Charles Jones (1990 Global justice: Defending Cosmopolitanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press);
Darrel Moellendorf (2002) Cosmopolitan Justice (Boulder: Westview);
Simon Caney (2005) Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
John Rawls (1972) A Theory of justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
John Rawls (1999) The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
J. Feinberg (1984) Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
See Hidemi Suganami (1989) The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Andrew Linklater (2002) “Cosmopolitan Communities in International Relations,” International Relations, 16 (1), 150.
Andrew Linklater (2001) “Citizenship, Humanityand Cosmopolitan Harm,” International Political Science Review 22 (3), 265.
David Miller (2004) “Holding Nations Responsible,” Ethics, 114, 240–268.
Andrew Linklater (2006) “The Harm Principle and Global Ethics,” Global Society, 20 (3), 336.
Charles Beitz (1999) “Social and Cosmopolitan Liberalism,” International Affairs, 75 (3), 512–599:
See for instance A. Buchanan (1989) “Assessing the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism,” Ethics, 99 (4), 852–882.
See Richard Shapcott (2000) Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
This point has also recently by made by Thomas Nagel (2005) “The Problem of Global Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 33 (2), 112–147.
It is arguable that Walzer comes closest to this position in his defense of the “supreme emergency” doctrine that allows states to abandon the doctrine of noncombatant immunity. In this case the survival of one’s own community overrides the harm to civilians in another. See Daniel Warner, “Searching for Responsibility/Community in International Relations,” in D. Dampbell and M. Shapiro (eds.) (1999) Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Andrew Linklater (2001) “Citizenship, Humanity and Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions,” International Political Science 22 (3), 264.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2009 Michális S. Michael and Fabio Petito
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shapcott, R. (2009). Anti-Cosmopolitanism, the Cosmopolitan Harm Principle and Global Dialogue. In: Michael, M.S., Petito, F. (eds) Civilizational Dialogue and World Order. Culture and Religion in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230621602_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230621602_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-37494-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-62160-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)