David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Global Ethics 5 (2):97-108 (2009)
Theories of global justice have moved from issues relating to crimes against humanity and war crimes or, furthermore, ?negative duties? with respect to non-citizens, towards problems of distributive justice and global inequality. Thomas Nagel's Storrs Lectures from 2005, exemplifying Rawlsian internationalism, argue that liberal requirements concerning duties of distributive justice apply exclusively within a single nation-state, and do not extend to duties of this nature between rich and poor countries. Nagel even argues that the demand for global equality is not a demand of justice at all. In the present article I will try to offer a normative basis for the criticism of such a view. Following Kant and more recently Philip Pettit, I locate this normative basis on political freedom conceived as non-domination. Such a conception opens up the possibility of a political cosmopolitanism, which is based not on an empirical interdependence among people at a global level, but on a normative interdependence. Subsequent cosmopolitan duties extend both to the elimination of domination everywhere in the world and to the equal enjoyment of non-dominated choice. Thus, it will be argued that modern republicanism is falsely identified with a particular, bounded community, but supports a political, not simply a moral, cosmopolitanism. This kind of cosmopolitanism conceives of sovereign states neither as useless constructions, nor as mere instruments for realizing the pre-institutional value of justice among human beings. Instead, their existence is what gives the value of justice its application. Cosmopolitanism is not after all about the abolishment of all boundaries, but about the essential capacity to draw and redraw them infinitely under conditions of global justice
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
Elizabeth S. Anderson (1999). What is the Point of Equality? Ethics 109 (2):287-337.
Joshua Cohen (2004). Minimalism About Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope For? Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (2):190–213.
Thomas Nagel (2005). The Problem of Global Justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2):113–147.
Michael Pendlebury (2007). Global Justice and the Specter of Leviathan. Philosophical Forum 38 (1):43–56.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Pablo Gilabert (2012). From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford University Press, UK.
David Miller (2007). National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford University Press.
Pablo Gilabert (2005). The Duty to Eradicate Global Poverty: Positive or Negative? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (5):537 - 550.
Daniel M. Weinstock (ed.) (2007). Global Justice, Global Institutions. University of Calgary Press.
Kok-Chor Tan (2002). Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitan Justice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):431-461.
András Miklós (2011). The Basic Structure and the Principles of Justice. Utilitas 23 (2):161-182.
Allison B. Wolf (2005). Can Global Justice Provide a Path Toward Achieving Justice Across the Americas? Journal of Global Ethics 1 (2):153 – 176.
Win-Chiat Lee (2012). Cosmopolitanism with Room for Nationalism. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (2):279-293.
Aaron Maltais (2008). Global Warming and the Cosmopolitan Political Conception of Justice. Environmental Politics 17 (4):592-609.
Added to index2010-07-27
Total downloads31 ( #47,424 of 1,088,831 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,665 of 1,088,831 )
How can I increase my downloads?