Cosmopolitanism and Ethics

Abstract

A unified and peaceful cosmopolitan humanity is a state of political organization, which is clearly worthwhile, and presents values of political stability, peace, co-existence, resolution of global problems and economic and cultural prosperity. The end of the Cold War raised expectations that the international community would take practical steps to try and reach a higher level of humanity’s unity. The actual developments were very different, and the cosmopolitan ideal has been widely criticized by both politicians and intellectuals. This article’s research question is why humanity remains divided despite its understanding of unity’s benefits and the expectations of moving in that direction. The failed implementation of the cosmopolitan ideal is explained by its inherent characteristics. In this chapter I claim that Cosmopolitanism is a philosophical term and is primarily used in philosophical debate. It is not a political ideology, which constitutes one of the major obstacles in establishing the conditions of cosmopolitan world order. Therefore, the chapter states that to achieve the actual development of cosmopolitan conditions in the present world order, the supporters of Cosmopolitanism must redefine the concept of humanity’s unity, and move it from the level of pure philosophical debate to the realm of political ideology. On the other hand, such a transformation, though seemingly vital for the cosmopolitan project, entails a variety of ethical problems for the nature and basic concepts of the cosmopolitan ideal. This work will describe and analyze the ethical dilemmas that arise from the attempt to implement the Cosmopolitan ideal in international relations.