Cosmopolitan …show more content…
If one believes that human institutions are merely outgrowths of humans themselves and personal relationships can be models for state relationships, then one only has to look at a healthy long-term human relationship and know that global cooperation is possible. Healthy personal relationships are based on trust, open communication, and working to make sure everyone’s needs are met. States like humans have the potential to use their resources to build each other up, and create harmonious relationships where people come together in pursuit of a better society. This does not mean people lose their individuality, just like when one dates another person they do not lose themselves, but the opposite, they grow more as a person since they know someone always has their back. If states are open and willing to discuss their issues as they arise, then they can solve problems effectively, making sure the people living in their respective boundaries are treated with respect and …show more content…
It is part of the universality, impartiality, and individualism principles Cosmopolitanism is founded on. This method of perceiving the world requires individuals to look beyond their own petty self-interest, and determine that it is morally wrong for a human to suffer based on the simple fact both individuals are human. It is then morally required that the individual do something to decrease or eliminate said suffering since they would want the same aid if the roles were reversed. Now while the cost of fighting injustices and moral evils is overwhelming in the short term, it offers the world a light at the end of the tunnel. It gives humanity a goal and something to strive towards, so even if a cosmopolitan failed in eradicating all pain, they could be satisfied that they used their time “to decrease world suck” as the Vlogbrothers, John and Hank Green, would say. The worst thing anyone could say about cosmopolitanism in practice is that they tried too hard to make the world a better place and they believed too hard in the goodness of humanity. So if the worst one can say about a moral practice is they tried to get rid of human suffering for everyone and they only succeeded in helping a few, then is it really so bad? Would one object to having their