On the Way to Global Ethics? Cosmopolitanism, ‘Ethical’ Selfhood and Otherness (original) (raw)
Related papers
Reconciling Universality and Particularity through a Cosmopolitan Outlook on Human Rights
Human rights are today criticized as not compatible with different cultural values and the debate has circulated around Asian values and Islamic values as in dichotomy with human rights as universal ethics (Ignatieff, 2003). The theoretical dichotomy between universality and particularity is questioned pragmatically in this paper through a historical study. The working process of drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1946-48, which included thousands of people, is explored as a cosmopolitan space in which individuals from different cultural contexts met to negotiate human rights through cultural narratives. The process where particular values were negotiated with universal notion on human rights resulted in a common proclamation (UDHR) without a common philosophical or ideological ground. This paper puts forth a thesis that human rights discourse can work as a cosmopolitan space, in which particular value systems meet in processes characterized by conflict and cohesion. Hence human rights can be understood as a master narrative compatible with different conflicting cultural narratives .
Cosmopolitanism, sovereignty and human rights – In defense of critical universalism
Ethical Thought
What is a reasonable understanding of the relationship between human rights protection, on the one hand, and respect for people's sovereignty, on the other? In order to address this question this article utilizes the distinction between political cosmopolitanism on the one side, and moral cosmopolitanism on the other. Political cosmopolitanism implies that some form of global citizenship is needed for universal protection of human rights. Critics of this position stress the importance of self-governance and state sovereignty. In this article, it is claimed that rejection of political cosmopolitanism can be combined with embracement of moral cosmopolitanism, i.e. embracement a global moral community where respect for human dignity and therefore recognition of human rights of each individual is not limited by national citizenship and borders. In this article, I defend a non-violent form of moral cosmopolitanism. Such a cosmopolitanism demands a modification of universalism of human rights. I distinguish between descriptive and epistemological universalism on the one hand and pure normative universalism on the other. Descriptive and epistemological universalism, I demonstrate, are aggressive forms of universalism that tend to legitimize domination. Critical universalism, which is a form of pure normative universalism, is justified in that it inspires political liberation within different traditions without legitimizing cultural monopolism and violence of the Global North.
Human Rights: From the Challenge of Relativism to the Possibility of Cosmopolitanism
Etica e Politica, 2022
The article presents a reflection on Corradetti’s distinctive position developed in Relativism and Human Rights. A Theory of Pluralist Universalism . It concentrates, in particular, on a detailed analysis of the development and deployment of the text’s argumentation in the final chapter. In this analysis, the article indicates aspects and elements of the argumentation which lead to potential difficulties with the elaboration of a theory of pluralist universalism.
This thesis is an original contribution to critical international relations theory. Responding to Hartmut Behr's call for the development of more universalistic trajectories of ontological inquiry for contemporary (global) politics and ethics, our original contribution is to establish a 'critical' approach to international theory on a more universalistic meta-theoretical foundation. Proceeding from a philosophical analysis of 'ontological' foundations in influential normative, meta-theoretical, and critical approaches to international theory, we argue for a shift from international theory’s reliance on a shallow ontology of 'things that exist' to a fuller ontology of being, and of human being in particular. After identifying with the left-Hegelian tradition of thought, and establishing that the most compelling and promising advocate of a 'critical' approach to international theory, that of Andrew Linklater, rests on a limited conception of human existence and a thin understanding of human freedom, we explore the implications of conceptions of human being and freedom in the work of Martin Heidegger and Georg W. F. Hegel for critical international theory. Offering an epistemological defence of our universalism through Hegel's phenomenological constructivist approach to knowledge, then demonstrating how this allows us to transcend the schism between foundationalist and anti-foundationalist approaches to normative theory, we premise our own emancipatory cosmopolitanism on a commitment to the human being conceived as 'singularity' rather than subject. Proceeding from a discussion of 'what it means to be' a free human being according to Heidegger and Hegel, we then foreground two aspects of human freedom that have hitherto been obscured in critical international theory and develop a praxeological emancipatory cosmopolitanism on this basis. Rather than rejecting Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism, we call for its 'overcoming,' and demonstrate ways that our meta-theoretical argument can effect international practice by offering 'love' as a guide for ethical and emancipatory praxis and an evaluative tool for critical social theory.
Globalization and Politics, Vol. 4: Political Philosophies of the Global (2014)
2014
The question of where an ethical position can legitimately ground its principles became a basic question of contemporary ethics, as did the issue of where does an ethics derive its authority and how universalizing should and can its reach be. The intensification of globalizing processes across the course of the twentieth century redoubled the urgency of working this through. Whether it was the debates in Parliament of the World’s Religions over a possible Western bias or the postmodern move to destabilize all foundations of ethical certainty, older lineages of philosophy and ethics were drawn into debates over the meaning of a global ethics. The first part of this essay outlines important lineages and debates in global ethics. The second part of this essay, explores the philosophical and social foundations of a sense of global connectedness, beginning with Plato’s allegory of the cave and moving across some basic positions from Emmanuel Kant to Martin Heidegger. The third section, ‘Towards an Ethics of Global Relations’, begins with a discussion of a philosopher writing in the 1970s who is still working out of a national framework, John Rawls. Because his work becomes so significant for a series of abstracted cosmopolitans who later take on a global remit, there can be no better starting point for illustrating the movement from the dominance of a national imaginary to a global imaginary. This is takes us to a discussion of the communitarian critique of cosmopolitanism by such writers as Michael Walzer and to attempts by other writers such as Charles Beitz to retrieve its strengths. The fourth section, ‘Debating Cosmopolitanisms’ sets out an argument for an alternative form of cosmopolitanism—grounded cosmopolitanism.
Cosmopolitanism and Anti-Cosmopolitanism in International Ethical Thought: A Critical Evaluation
It would be more accurate to describe cosmopolitanism and anti-cosmopolitanism as points on a spectrum of universalism rather than as diametrically opposed extremes that represent a major gulf between universalism and particularism. Both cosmopolitans and anti-cosmopolitans share a worldview and way of thinking that is based on the principles of equality and liberty. Cosmopolitans and anti-cosmopolitans differ greatly from one another, although they have a similar lexicon of equality and freedom, albeit with diverse interpretations of these ideals. Only in terms of those pillars' scope, content, and interpretation can notable disparities emerge. Universalists in morals are cosmopolitans. They contend that morality should be viewed as a single society among humans, with universally applicable laws. Cosmopolitans contend that morality is a global concept and that everyone should be able to follow a really moral code. Cosmopolitanism is, at its most fundamental, the moral predicate that all individuals ought to be treated equally, regardless of their gender, color, ability, or other characteristics. Cosmopolitans place a strong emphasis on broad cross-border positive (like justice and assistance) and negative (like non-harming) responsibilities. National borders, according to anticosmopolitans, offer significant ethical restraints. Opponents of cosmopolitanism contend that people should be viewed as a collection of distinct groups, each with its own morality and no real shared moral principles. This paper presents a broad summary of cosmopolitan theory and centers on the central tenet that all people belong to one moral community. It outlines many interpretations of cosmopolitanism and explores their similarities and differences. Particularly cosmopolitans stress some universal aspects of morality and moral knowledge, whilst anti-cosmopolitans base their argument on the notion that morality is a cultural construct. Because of this, this paper tackles a number of important issues that may initially appear to have nothing to do with international ethics. Additionally, it discusses the anti-cosmopolitan stances of nationalism, realism, and communitarianism. One of the main points of this paper is to show that, despite their significant differences, they may all be seen as belonging to the same anti-cosmopolitan tradition. It shows that the three are derived from communitarian moral epistemologies, emphasizing the social or community source of moral and ethical knowledge. As a result, it highlights the limitations of cosmopolitans' global theories of justice. A few observations on the shortcomings of the natural obligations argument and the anti-cosmopolitan stance round up this paper.
Being thought from beyond our borders: Towards ethical global citizenship
This article is a response to the challenge of global citizenship in an age of global crisis. Citizenship has to do with where one feels ‘at home’, namely the space that gifts identity and life. What kind of narrative is necessary to transform global space into a home from where we can go beyond our borders to embrace the other in multidisciplinary research or interfaith praxis? The different models for multidisciplinary research1 are made possible by the idea that research seeks that which is beyond its borders. This search could be a common space where the different traditions can accommodate one another, but it is not a home. The dominant discourse of this common space is to seek commonality and identities across borders while being aware of but ignoring differences – identity at the expense of differences. A home founded on identity at the expense of difference will always exclude. Theology can either be interpreted as thinking beyond the borders toward the Divine, or the Divine thinking us. The Exodus, the Incarnation and the Cross are all narratives of the Other crossing borders, liberating from boundaries, deconstructing the laws and norms that exclude. The religious traditions of these sacred narratives have something to offer, namely: to be thought by the Other, to receive life and (alien) identity from the Other, the gift of a home which is continuously deconstructed by the home still to come, therefore always open for the Other.