Elderfield - RR3
.docx
School
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
PHIL 441
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 16, 2024
Pages
1
Uploaded by aelderfield1
Abigail Elderfield PHIL 441Brock defines the key idea of cosmopolitanism as “that every person has global stature as the ultimate unit of moral concern and is therefore entitled to equal respect and consideration no matter what her citizenship status or other affiliations happen to be”1I argue against this definition of cosmopolitan, as it does not fully apply to the nature of what cosmopolitanism allows and disregards the reality of the boundaries placed by states. This explanation of cosmopolitanism asks for a redefinition of the boundaries of states. People seek to gain a freedom of movement yet still acknowledge the law of the land and want laws to be imposed. The double standard of justice becomes a threat for a single justice system. In addition, theprotest for a democratic right and the vote is assumed by many to be a basic human right however, individuals still look for solutions outside of the county which they are a citizen for. Furthermore, legislation cannot fully conceptualise cosmopolitanism because individuals must still be held under the jurisdiction from the law of one country. There can be no clash in the process as concessions cannot be made of one law over another for individuals. If this was the case, who deals out the hierarchal position in the system of creating laws. Therefore, a dual citizenship to accommodate cosmopolitanism would not work.In the case of morality, Brocks definition falls short. The measure of morality is different from place to place. How can every country place the same moral worth on individuals which are not centralised? Every individual cannot receive the same level of moral worth if they have no central reference point to a culture. Furthermore, in a moral sense it would be difficult for every person to reap the benefits and suffer the costs of the laws within each country they appear to belong to. It is like an unjustifiable advocacy for a growth in the local economy and also wanting to benefit from theresources of other countries. 1Gillian Brock, Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account(Oxford, 2009) p. 3
