page_title: Global justice
section_title: Cosmopolitanism
hierarchical_section_title: Global justice / Main positions / Cosmopolitanism
context_page_description: Global justice is an issue in political philosophy arising from the concern about unfairness. It is sometimes understood as a form of internationalism.
context_section_description: Cosmopolitans argue that some form of moral universalism is true, and therefore that all humans, and not merely compatriots or fellow-citizens, fall within the scope of justice.  Their arguments typically appeal to consistency, as follows:
  The moral standing of individuals is based on some morally significant characteristics.
  These characteristics are shared by all humans (and not only by the members of some nation, culture, society, or state).
  Therefore, all humans have moral standing (and the boundaries between nations, cultures, societies and states are morally irrelevant).
  Cosmopolitans differ, however, over which shared human characteristics are morally significant.
  Consequentialist cosmopolitans, amongst whom Peter Singer is prominent, argue that the proper standard of moral judgement for actions, practices or institutions is their consequences, and that the measure of consequences is the welfare of humans (or even of all sentient creatures).  The capacity to experience welfare and suffering is therefore the shared basis for moral standing. This means that the fact that some people are suffering terrible deprivations of welfare, caused by poverty, creates a moral demand that anyone who is able to help them do so.  Neither the physical distance between the rich and the poor, nor the fact that they are typically citizens of different countries, has any moral relevance.
  Human rights defenders of cosmopolitanism, such as Thomas Pogge and Simon Caney, argue that all humans have rights, perhaps those set out in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  It may be argued that these rights create a positive duty of the rich to provide what they guarantee (security, a livelihood, etc.); or, alternatively, it may be argued that the rich are currently violating their negative duty not to impose a global order that systematically violates rights of the poor.
  Others defend neoconservative interventionist foreign policy from a view of cosmopolitanism for the added benefits to human rights that such intervention could bring. Some defended the 2003 invasion of Iraq from this motive due to the human rights abuses Saddam had inflicted on countless members of the Kurdish and Shiite communities.
  Individual cosmopolitans also differ considerably in how they understand the requirements of distributive justice and the legitimacy of global institutions. Some, for instance Kai Nielsen, endorse world government; others, such as Simon Caney, do not. The extent to which cosmopolitans advocate global redistribution of resources also varies. For instance, Charles Beitz would seek to address resource inequalities through extending the Rawlsian difference principle globally to advantage those least well off in the world, although the resources he would redistribute are natural resources rather than the broader category of societal goods (including such matters as talent).  All cosmopolitans, however, believe that individuals, and not states, nations, or other groups, are the ultimate focus of universal moral standards.
caption: John Gower, Vox Clamantis detail (c. 1400): the world
exif: {}