More handpicked essays just for you.
Communitarianism and cosmopolitanism explained
Principles of managing diversity
Principles of managing diversity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
As defined, cosmopolitanism as a whole is the idea that all cultures and ethnic groups within our world belong to a single community based on a shared morality. Considering this, Anthony Appiah claims that “cosmopolitanism is universality plus difference.” He says this because cosmopolitanism is based upon people accepting the variety of people, but understanding that all the different people of the world belong to one group due to a shared moral standard. But how can this be, when there are wars and conflicts going on throughout the world? Appiah discusses this throughout his book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, as well as the commitments that cosmopolitans make, such as the commitment to the respect of differences in humans …show more content…
A major disagreement among numerous people is religion because each person believes that they are right and the other is wrong, whereas cosmopolitans believe that both are right in their own sense. Appiah uses the example of a Muslim and a Catholic in his chapter, “The Shattered Mirror,” in order to solidify his argument of cosmopolitanism. “Muslims should go to Mecca, Catholics to Mass” – this statement, however, is not valid in today’s world. If you do not believe in one of these traditions because you believe your religion is the only religion, you would believe those who think otherwise are mistaken, not you. As Appiah concluded within this chapter, “we can often experience the appeal of values that aren’t, exactly, our own. So perhaps, when it comes to morality, there is no singular truth. In that case, there’s no one shattered mirror; there are lots of mirrors, lots of moral truths, and we can at best agree to differ” (11). Cosmopolitanism can only thrive if we all agree to differ, instead of constantly disagreeing. But, how can we all agree to disagree if we do not have the same values and moral …show more content…
People simply need to accept these differences, whether they know the person or not. Just like we have diversity within our cultures, there is moral diversity. Cosmopolitanism encourages moral diversity because these new beliefs help societies through their different perspectives and different approaches. Overall, it is crucial that people, despite their cultural differences, share beliefs on at least what is right and wrong. The fact that there are other cultures is proof that a moral code exist because many agree upon what is right and wrong, but may just have some slight differences based upon their cultural ideals. Cosmopolitans allow for varying people to thrive in their cultures, if and only if, they accept the differences in each other enough to
In the article “Moral Disagreement”, Kwame Anthony Appiah discusses the issue of morality. He uses his cultural background to bring examples of what is the morality of right and wrong. Appiah’s argument is that right and wrong will vary from culture to culture. Even if someone understands a culture completely, they will always have something that they will disagree about. Morality is constantly evolving and changing, and there will always be someone who will argue against a moral concept being right. The following is a rhetorical analysis of Appiah’s credibility, tone, and audience.
As the world becomes increasingly more interconnected, differences among the many religions prove to be obstacles to the global society. In an effort to overcome these obstacles, religious authorities propose the essential sameness of all religions (that all religions point towards the same goal); however, this hypothesis oversimplifies all religions to an arbitrary base. On the other hand, Stephen Prothero’s, the author of God Is Not One, proposal for the acknowledgment of the differences preserves the multidimensional aspects of religions. By rejecting the hypothesis of a basic and similar structure of religion, Prothero allows for them to exist as complete entities; however, Prothero also creates false barriers that over differentiate religions.
It is essential to understand the differences and similarities that people have within other people, to just try to accept the fact that some people may be different. However conversation often leads to social change because people tend to want to fit in where most people are the same. Appiah explains “Depending on the circumstances, conversations across boundaries can be delightful, or just vexing” (Page 73). That is why Appiah believes people need to be more accepting, more globalized. He initially feels that conversation can lead people to create change and can hinder their reasons to fit in because they are different. However, conversation is not enough because people are still changing to fit in, people are constantly feeling left out, not valued for their customs or beliefs. He also asserts “We can’t hope to reach a final consensus on how to rank and order such values. That’s why the model i 'll be returning to is that of conversation” (Appiah 73). With this being said it is clearly stated how Appiah is a firm believer that conversation is the number one key for understanding of others. This can be very controversial because Munoz may disagree. He asserts “The English- only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish” (Munoz 308). Conversation is leading to a change that is creating to erase the differences among people. For instance, Munoz asserts how people are changing their names because they feel comfortable and different. People are erasing their names and putting American names and forgetting where their names came from and how much it means to their culture. This is a major issue when conversation is changing but not necessarily for the better. It does create and effect in many people whom they are talked into how they are different and due to because people just don’t accept and understand the different cultures. It is
In Nussbaum’s article I have a problem with the unrealistic goal of universal cosmopolitanism, as it is impossible for an individual to think of themself fully a citizen of the world. A sense of home identification will always linger as no one feels welcome or is welcomed in every nation or community on earth. It is impossible to make a patriotic person non patriotic as no one person has had the exact same
According to The Global Religious Landscape’s research in 2010, about 84% of the world’s population is religious; for example, 31.2% of the population believe in Christianity, 23.2% of the population believe in Islam and 15% of the population believe in Hindi ("The Global Religious Landscape"). Religion is a powerful weapon that makes people have faith to do what they believe is right. However, since everyone may share a different religion, they undoubtedly communicate different ideas about their beliefs. This concept can be seen in both Veiled Thread: The Guerrilla Graffiti of Princess Hijab, by Arwa Aburawa and Faith and Diplomacy, by Madeleine Albright. The discussion about integrity is never-ending due to people’s different definitions
Kwane Anthony Appiah is deeply invested in the theory of Cosmopolitanism, and which he defines as “it’s OK for people to be different.” The family dynamics in which he was raised is evident in his writing and allows him a unique perceptive of the world. Having a bicultural up bringing as well as a multicultural and political family permits him a critical perspective of various culture and philosophies which has help to sculpt his beliefs and values of the world. He believes that to achieve progress as individuals, in this global world, our nations are obligated to be accountable for it citizenship within the world (Taylor, 2009).
The concept of Cosmopolitan Universalism is Individuals within a society breaking down racial and stereotypical boundaries, coming together as one acknowledging each other as equals. This idea of "Coexistence" is the basis of Cosmopolitan Universalism. Cosmopolitan Universalism was first introduced to combat the Master-Slave Dialectic theory, where the dominant individuals "The Master" feels that they have this upper hand or control over Minority groups "The Slave" and relish it. The term Cosmoploitan Universalism was introduced by Ross Posnock in "After Identity Politics", where Posnock gives readers a background of Cosmopolitan ideas. There are subfields of cosmopolitan Universalism including pragmatist pluralism (accepting differences,
The implementation of this new ethical paradigm allowed for Abrahamic societies to link their belief in God to common social values and responsibilities (Stark, 2001). The approach which Judaism, Christianity and Islam each take toward these common social values and responsibilities displays which values are held highest in each religion. Despite differences in each religion’s approach, common themes exist. The role of justice and forgiveness in each religion displays a common belief that man’s nature is to stray from God’s justice, but that man can ultimately connect with the divine through the contemplation and understanding of what is good and right.
This essay will argue the critical point, that Costas Douzinas does recycle, but he also updates Jeremy Bentham’s early approach to rights, by using a modern day approach to his theory. Both Bentham and Douzinas agreed that rights were created by people with power and are told that they are to protect the people without it . Rights are seen to be a tool that is implemented by the government in order to obtain further power over the everyday citizen. This can be seen when there is a protest of human rights, the everyday citizen protests non-violently, but the violence only invariably comes from the police, or the government when trying to stop these protests.
Throughout history and time, the perception of cosmopolitanism has changed immensely. Before the modern day, philosophers such as Diogenes and Immanuel Kant had similar ideas on how to attain a cosmopolitan society. But throughout time, these concepts have altered to accommodate the constant change and growth of cultures today. Now in the modern day, we have philosophers that have expanded and created a new concept, shifting the image of cosmopolitanism more towards the individual rather than the nation state. They believe cosmopolitanism is an idea that surpasses the borders of a nation, looking at an individual to not only have a national identity, but also join a global society.
The intention of this essay is to put forth the idea of which membership in a political community does encompass prioritised moral obligations to its members. This essay will begin in the first section by exploring into the concept of political communities and the obligations which are attached to such an association. The second section will present the argument of which anti-cosmopolitans or communitarians believe that such prioritisation should be duly accorded to the members of a political community, above and beyond that of outsiders from this political communities. The third section will address the flipside of the argument of which cosmopolitans believe that all humans are equal, and there should be no prioritisation of moral duties in its efforts to envisage a global governance in its effort to emphasize on universality and equality. The fourth section will explore more on the tensions between general and associative duties, to make an assessment on whether it is possible to simultaneously fulfil both obligations through the lens of a moderate cosmopolitanism.
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
Cosmopolitanism and communitarianism differ vastly in the way they, as intellectual concepts, deal with international relations. Cosmopolitanism holds the view that the rights of humanity and the individual should override those of the state (or political community), whereas communitarianism is the opposite. It states that the rights of the community are more important than those of the state. It is because of these fundamental differences that they deal with international relations in significantly different ways. However, both theories have their flaws and it seems that we can have neither a fully cosmopolitan or communitarian world political system.
3 Indeed, Jewish experience, as it is the case of the Sephardic exile, frequently implies “multiple experiences of re-diasporization, which do not necessarily succeed each other in historical memory but echo back and forth” (Boyarin 1993).
One of the central developments was to establish what principles is shared by people of different faiths, as Christianity is not completely universal nor necessarily natural in all of its principles set forth. Grotius took part in initiating this development as he denounced the notion of universal Christianity, and suggested a better degree of validity would be possible under a less biased set of moral principle (Coleman, pg. 67). This development was found to be what is most “reasonable” for mankind by modern theorists such as John Finnis, yet branching from the notions set forth by prior theorists. Finnis’ theory operates in the absence of a divine figure, yet still holds a universal standard of what is “good.” This reasonable notion is further evaluated as moral principles are naturally embedded into human beings, and a particular system such as religion is not necessary to reflect such (Coleman, pg.