Cosmopolitanism And International Ethics

Great Essays
International Ethics are the guidelines for a state in making complex decisions regarding their relationships with other states, and non-state actors. The most robust school of thought for the globalized world is Cosmopolitan Ethics. Cosmopolitanism regards human beings as one in the same, no life is worth more or less than another, and it is the duty of the state to protect the rights of all humans until humanity can ultimately come together as one global society without regard to socially constructed differences. In a globalized world where alliances are easily shifted and states need to cooperate in order to maintain status quo, it is the Cosmopolitan school of thought that prevails and offers the best overall outcome for humanity.
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Capital Punishment Ethics

    • 1000 Words
    • 4 Pages

    166). This theory creates the foundation for an argument throughout the nation and causes the States to have opposing policies regarding this issue. There are ethical concepts and theories that will support both sides of the argument. One way sentient beings can be morally right is through tolerance. Tolerance “implies a universal duty to respect others, regardless of how we personally feel” (Boss, 2014, pg.…

    • 1000 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To be able to see the conception of humanity that emerges optimistic, it is important to be accepting of the choices you and others have made. The lack of acceptance for choices made will result in a negative approach of human race. Every single man will see the humanity differently, but it will be based on their own choices. Freedom of will is an opportunity and a blessing, in my perspective it the greatest blessing ever given to mankind. Humans have the right to change, create, destroy and destruct.…

    • 736 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kant’s interpretation of evil is defined by what an individual posits as a universal moral maxim. Kant believes that in order to be completely moral you must have your will and your willkur agree with each other and act accordingly to your will. He believes that you are committing an act of radical evil if your motives are in your own self-interest. To be moral a person must do his or her duty for duty’s sake. He takes out all prior feelings and emotions in order to not corrupt the integrity of morality.…

    • 1002 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Glaucon supports his theory out of his analogy of the Rings of Gyges where those who practiced justice only did so out of fear and as soon as the barrier was lifted, they started to commit bad deeds. Acting justly simply makes their lives more secure and convenient rather than their spirits aligning with reason. Glaucon concludes his argument by adding a statement by Adeimantus who claims that justice is praised only for its consequences, it holds a reputation with winning, such as within political campaigns or successful marriages. Ultimately, both philosophers challenge Socrates to prove whether or not justice can be justified as a good in…

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Without the idea of being socially "correct" would cause a collapse in social acceptance. To one, from their perspective, being greedy is "the right thing to do" because it makes them feel good, even though to the rest of the universal group it is frowned upon; which causes the pack to turn. "Every other rational being thinks of his existence by means of the same rational ground which holds also for myself; thus it is at the same time an objective principle from which, as a supreme practical ground, it must be possible to derive all laws of the will." (Ibid.,…

    • 1398 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It's shown time and time again, even respected people let opinions get in the way of things. They set us back, and if morals we based on reason and logic, they wouldn't vary as much as they do. Unless people don't understand what they are believing in, thats always possible. In the third section Hume brings up justice. Justice is different (or so he says) because it is based on humanity, for the good of humanity.…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In Gulliver's Travels, Swift unpacks certain dark aspects of human nature, namely, its innate selfishness. In contrast to modern theorists like Locke, who contend that the pursuit of self-interest will serve the common good, Swift underscores the potential for unleashing the beastliness in human nature, loosening the traditional moral constraints on avarice and ambition. As a commentary on the modern project, Swift introduces the crude and uncontrollably desirous "Yahoos," who, given the opportunity to pursue their self-interests, reveal a complete disregard for others. He employs the "Houyhnhnms" to serve as the rational antithesis to the Yahoos. For Swift, human beings prove a composite mix between the two.…

    • 1328 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    No moral theory can help you decide what situation is right. The only true choice is the choice the person chooses because it is determined by the values one chose to accept. Sincere actions paint a picture of what all humans should be like. We are defined by our actions. If a person believes that they are nice person, but they go around and perform mean actions then some existentialists would say that they are mean person based on the actions they performed.…

    • 783 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Brennan, Warren – PHI220 DL01 – Short Paper 1 Utilitarianism, as presented by Shafer-Landau, is an interesting ethical theory in that it presents the idea that at times it is immoral to act in a manner that we’ve been taught is moral. I will argue that Act Utilitarianism is a sound ethical theory and that it’s precepts are utilized in modern society despite many public figures making pronouncements against this behavior. Act Utilitarianism is sound because it allows its supporters to resolve conflicts that other ethical theories struggle with. It also fits within the norms of recognized moral behavior on a day to day basis while being based upon the idea of treating every individual’s well-being equally. In his writings, Shafer-Landau, explains…

    • 825 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He notes how any society will have certain standards ingrained within its members and that these ingrained morals cannot simply just be forced aside when confronted with a separate society with differing morals. (Williams, 21) Rachels’ relativism argument and Williams’ counter argument are examples of philosophies without a universal moral truth and an argument that debases it. The case of Rachels’ relativism is a little strange in that, while the theory claims to be spreading tolerance of other cultures, the lack of a universal standard to base the moral judgements upon brings up the question of how one would judge their own moral standards. This is especially potent in cases where a culture permits acts such as conquest and genocide-acts that obviously will bring harm to others. The Nazi regime is a prime example of this.…

    • 1298 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics