Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T15:20:08.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Cosmopolitanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

By
Andrew Linklater
Edited by
Andrew Dobson  and
Robyn Eckersley
Andrew Linklater
Affiliation:
Department of International Politics The University of Wales Aberystwyth
Andrew Dobson
Affiliation:
The Open University, Milton Keynes
Robyn Eckersley
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Get access

Summary

The long-term moral consequences of a series of revolutions in technology and communications which have brought all human societies into a single global political and economic system remain unclear; Kant's question of whether the ‘oceans make a community of nations impossible’ is relevant two centuries on (Kant 1965: 126). The global media have increased public awareness of suffering in other places, but distance continues to block the extension of solidarity and sympathy beyond the nation state. Global environmental problems have deepened awareness of the interdependence of the species, but it is not certain they will overcome the age-old effects of the ‘tyranny of distance’ on political loyalty. Will powerful cosmopolitan commitments develop because of global environment problems? What cosmopolitan ethic is most appropriate for a world facing serious environmental threats and challenges?

Kant's answer to his question about the effects of distance on moral and political community frames the present discussion. He pointed to the ambiguities of globalisation in his era. Advances in oceanic navigation created new possibilities ‘for doing evil and violence to some place on our globe’ (1965: 126). Observers in our time make a similar point when they argue that globalisation allows the most technologically advanced societies to damage the natural environment without great cost to themselves.

Type
Chapter
Information
Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge , pp. 109 - 128
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle, (1955). Ethics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Barbalet, J. (1998). Emotion, Social Theory and Social Structure: A Macrosociological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, B. (1980). Review of L. S. Scheleff, The Bystander: Behavior, Law, Ethics, Ethics 90. 4: 457–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards A New Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bendelow, G., and Williams, S. (1998). Emotions in Social Life: Critical Themes and Contemporary Issues. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boltanski, L. (1999). Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. (2001). States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, N. C. (2002). Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization and Humanitarian Intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. (ed.) (2001). Taking Responsibility: Comparative Perspectives. London: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Dobson, A. (2003). ‘States, Citizens and the Environment’, in Skinner, Q. and Strath, B. (eds.), States and Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch. 12.Google Scholar
Dobson, A.(2005). ‘Globalisation, Cosmopolitanism and the Environment’, International Relations 19.3: 259–73.
Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dower, N. (2000). ‘The Idea of Global Citizenship’, Global Society 14. 4: 553–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckersley, R. (2004). The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elias, N. (1987). Involvement and Detachment. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geras, N. (1998). The Contract of Mutual Indifference: Political Philosophy after the Holocaust. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldhagen, D. J. (2002). A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. (1985). Protecting the Vulnerable: A Reanalysis of our Social Responsibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, F. (1988). ‘Three Concepts of Internationalism’, International Affairs 64. 2: 187–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R., and Parrott, W. G. (eds.) (1996). Emotions: Social, Cultural and Biological Dimensions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1962). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1965). The Metaphysical Principles of Virtue. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. (2001). Pity Transformed. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Kummer, K. (1999). International Management of Hazardous Waste. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Linklater, A. (1998). The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of a Post-Westphalian Era. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Lupton, D. (1998). The Emotional Self. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Mason, M. (2001). ‘Transnational Environmental Obligations: Locating New Spaces of Accountability in a Post-Westphalian Order’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26. 4: 407–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeller, S. D. (1999). Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War and Death. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. et al. (2002). For Love of Country. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
O'Neill, O. (1991). ‘Transnational Justice’, in Held, D. (ed.), Political Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press, 276–304.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Scheff, T. (1988). ‘Shame and Conformity: The Deference-Emotion System’, American Sociological Review 53. 3: 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schopenhauer, A. (1995). On the Basis of Morality. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Shiva, V. (2000). ‘Ecological Balance in an Era of Globalization’, in Wapner, P. and Ruiz, L. (eds.), Principled World Politics: The Challenge of Normative International Relations. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Shrivastava, P. (1992). Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Google Scholar
Shue, H. (1981). ‘Exporting Hazards’, in Brown, P. G. and Shue, H. (eds.), Boundaries: National Autonomy and Its Limits. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1982). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Indianopolis: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
Smith, D. M. (2000). Moral Geographies: Ethics in a World of Difference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Staub, E. (2003). The Psychology of Good and Evil: Why Children, Adults and Groups Help and Harm Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tangney, J. P., and Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and Guilt. London: Guilford Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, M. (2002). ‘Spheres of Affection’, in Nussbaum, M. et al., For Love of Country. Boston: Beacon Press, 125–7.Google Scholar
Warnock, G. (1971). The Object of Morality. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Weisel, E. (1977). Dimensions of the Holocaust. Evanston, Ill.: Nortwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Cosmopolitanism
    • By Andrew Linklater, Department of International Politics The University of Wales Aberystwyth
  • Edited by Andrew Dobson, The Open University, Milton Keynes, Robyn Eckersley, University of Melbourne
  • Book: Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge
  • Online publication: 06 July 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617805.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Cosmopolitanism
    • By Andrew Linklater, Department of International Politics The University of Wales Aberystwyth
  • Edited by Andrew Dobson, The Open University, Milton Keynes, Robyn Eckersley, University of Melbourne
  • Book: Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge
  • Online publication: 06 July 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617805.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Cosmopolitanism
    • By Andrew Linklater, Department of International Politics The University of Wales Aberystwyth
  • Edited by Andrew Dobson, The Open University, Milton Keynes, Robyn Eckersley, University of Melbourne
  • Book: Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge
  • Online publication: 06 July 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617805.008
Available formats
×