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)|
References found in this work BETA
Deliberation Day.Bruce Ackerman & James S. Fishkin - 2002 - Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2):129–152.
Citations of this work BETA
Taxation and Global Justice: Closing the Gap Between Theory and Practice.Gillian Brock - 2008 - Journal of Social Philosophy 39 (2):161–184.
Humanitarian Intervention: Closing the Gap Between Theory and Practice.Gillian Brock - 2006 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (3):277–291.
What Do We Owe Co-Nationals and Non-Nationals? Why the Liberal Nationalist Account Fails and How We Can Do Better.Gillian Brock - 2005 - Journal of Global Ethics 1 (2):127 – 151.
Global Distributive Justice, Entitlement, and Desert.Gillian Brock - 2005 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (sup1):109-138.
Similar books and articles
Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity.Richard J. Arneson - 1999 - Philosophical Studies 93 (1):77-112.
Political Equality and Global Poverty: An Alternative Egalitarian Approach to Distributive Justice.Sagar Sanyal - 2009 - Dissertation, University of Canterbury
From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration.Pablo Gilabert - 2012 - Oxford University Press, UK.
A Modified Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice: “Justice as Fair Rights”.Rodney G. Peffer - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:593-608.
Does Global Egalitarianism Provide an Impractical and Unattractive Ideal of Justice?Christian Barry & Pablo Gilabert - 2008 - International Affairs 84 (5):1025-1039.
Fair Equality of Opportunity in Global Justice.Mark Navin - 2008 - Social Philosophy Today 24:39-52.
The Difference Principle, Equality of Opportunity, and Cosmopolitan Justice.Gillian Brock - 2005 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (3):333-351.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads89 ( #58,233 of 2,169,155 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #43,075 of 2,169,155 )
How can I increase my downloads?