Communitarianism and Cosmopolitanism
Two divergent theories on ethics in international relations I find particularly intriguing—and currently relevant—are communitarianism and cosmopolitanism. I chose these two dissimilar schools of thought as my discussion topic because while both regard ethics and basic human rights as a common concern, they do it in a very different way as they seek international justice and order. While communitarianism is more likely to pursue international stability, cosmopolitanism is more likely to encourage the protection of human rights.
While cosmopolitanism is primarily concerned with the welfare of the individuals who collectively make up a global society where “universal reason provides the basis for individual and collective moral obligation” (Amstutz 31), they’re simultaneously responsible for managing the collective problems that come with a cooperative society. Alternatively, communitarianism’s primary concern is that of the sovereign state as it considers a strong and humanitarian state necessary to protect human rights and improve the welfare of individuals. In other words, cosmopolitanism views the individuals and, in turn, the international society, as primary actors in the pursuit for peace, justice and order, while communitarianism stresses the significance of the
…show more content…
However, it appears these issues are often tackled most rigorously communitarianism-ly, “as a means to achieving national security objectives” (Lencucha 1) for the sake of individual member states rather than for the overall good of the international community. Perhaps, taking a more cosmopolitanism approach to managing global health issues would increase “the role that foreign policy can play in extending the responsibility of states to protect and promote health of the other, for the sake of the other” (Lencucha