David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Forum 36 (1):1–30 (2005)
Cosmopolitans believe that all human beings have equal moral worth and that our responsibilities to others do not stop at borders. Various cosmopolitans offer different interpretations of how we should understand what is entailed by that equal moral worth and what responsibilities we have to each other in taking our equality seriously. Two suggestions are that a cosmopolitan should endorse a 'global difference principle' and a 'principle of global equality of opportunity'. In the first part of this paper I examine whether these two suggestions are compelling. I argue against a global difference principle, but for an alternative 'needs-based minimum floor principle' (where these are not coextensive, as I explain). I develop a model of cosmopolitan justice, which allows us to address not only matters of global distributive justice, but other global justice issues as well. Though I support what I refer to as a negative version of the global equality of opportunity principle, I argue that a more positive version of the ideal remains elusive. In the second part of this paper, I reflect on what bearing these results have on two central sets of questions: First, what kind of ideal are we after in the domain of cosmopolitan justice and what practical implications can we reasonably expect from it? Second, what sort of ideal of egalitarianism is compelling and does my model of cosmopolitan justice adequately reflect the legitimate concerns of egalitarians?
|Keywords||equality of opportunity difference principle global difference principle equality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Bruce Ackerman & James S. Fishkin (2002). Deliberation Day. Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2):129–152.
Elizabeth S. Anderson (1999). What is the Point of Equality? Ethics 109 (2):287-337.
Simon Caney (2001). Cosmopolitan Justice and Equalizing Opportunities. Metaphilosophy 32 (1-2):113-134.
G. A. Cohen (1989). On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice. Ethics 99 (4):906-944.
James S. Fishkin & Peter Laslett (2002). Introduction. Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2):125–128.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Richard J. Arneson (1999). Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity. Philosophical Studies 93 (1):77-112.
Sagar Sanyal (2009). Political Equality and Global Poverty: An Alternative Egalitarian Approach to Distributive Justice. Dissertation, University of Canterbury
Pablo Gilabert (2012). From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford University Press, UK.
Rodney G. Peffer (2008). A Modified Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice: “Justice as Fair Rights”. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:593-608.
Christian Barry & Pablo Gilabert (2008). Does Global Egalitarianism Provide an Impractical and Unattractive Ideal of Justice? International Affairs 84 (5):1025-1039.
Mark Navin (2008). Fair Equality of Opportunity in Global Justice. Social Philosophy Today 24:39-52.
Larry A. Alexander (1985). Fair Equality of Opportunity. Philosophy Research Archives 11:197-208.
David Miller (2005). Against Global Egalitarianism. Journal of Ethics 9 (1-2):55 - 79.
Gillian Brock (2004). What Does Cosmopolitan Justice Demand of Us? Theoria 51 (104):169-191.
Gillian Brock (2005). The Difference Principle, Equality of Opportunity, and Cosmopolitan Justice. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (3):333-351.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads63 ( #28,976 of 1,410,432 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #38,287 of 1,410,432 )
How can I increase my downloads?