The readings that were assigned for
this section were much more intriguing then I previously thought that it would
be because I have always found myself leaning toward particularism. The
readings Ethics of Nationality by David Miller, and Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism
by Martha Nussbaum shifted me towards the middle of the debate. Nussbaum states that the ideal of cosmopolitan, “is the person
whose allegiance is to the worldwide community of human beings” (Nussbaum, Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, pg
306). Miller states that Ethical
Particularism holds “that relations between persons are part of the basic
subject-matter of ethics, so that fundamental principles may be attached
directly to these relations” (Miller, The ethics of Nationality, pg 286). As I stated
previously before I read these two arguments I partial to Particularism/Patriotism,
but after reading the two arguments I can see that moments in which I favor
either Patriotism or Cosmopolitanism is strictly situational.
David
Miller offers a compelling argument that can be summed up in the words “because
he is my brother”. As human beings it is only natural for us to be preferential
or discriminatory towards those that we already have a relationship too.
Throughout the United States examples of Particularism can be seen from loaning
a family member money over a stranger or small business owners who only employ
their families and friends; all the way to the international scale in which the
country has preferential trading partners. Particularism is simply part of
society and perhaps even part of human nature, and will continue to be for
quite some time as long as we continue to place great importance on the
relationships that we build with others.
Martha
Nussbaum offers an equally if not more compelling argument for Cosmopolitanism
for the simple fact that she was able to sway my opinion to include that
cosmopolitanism is in fact better than patriotism/cosmopolitanism in certain
situations. Nussbaum’s most enlightening part of her
argument is when see states that through Cosmopolitan Education, we can Learn
more about not only others but ourselves as well. One powerful statement she makes is that “Our
nation is appallingly ignorant of most of the rest of the world. I think this
means that it is also, in many crucial ways, ignorant of itself”(Nussbaum,
Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, pg 310). The ignorance of the United States is
a common accusation from nations across the world as majority of our nation has
no idea what is going on around the world nor cares to know. It is this lack of
knowledge that provides a situation in which the Cosmopolitanism view is in my
opinion; the best view. Instead of being so inclined to what is going on in the
United States we can become aware of what is happening around the world, which
would in turn allow us to learn more about ourselves.
Many times the question isn't necessarily about family members vs. strangers, as you mention in discussing the Miller piece but instead co-nationals instead of foreigners. Do you see a difference between the two groupings (i.e. is the first grouping the same as the second one?) are are they similar for you?
ReplyDeleteI'm curious where on the scale you lie at this point. I realize you say that it's situational, but in what regards? Do you mean that we should strive to be educated about the world but that there are times where we need to abandon that in favor of protecting our homestead?
ReplyDeleteIt would be prudent to be educated, it will help them understand the specific problems and to find proven solutions. This learning can help provide a way to transform a country to a solid state of economic and political stability. Or at least give the people living outside of the state a glimpse of what problems the citizen’s encounter. The thing is that the outsider can only do so much, and it is often up to the inhabitants to step up and rebuild their nation.
DeleteThis week’s readings also shifted me from particularism towards the middle of the debate. Miller argues that it is human nature for people to show preference to other citizens of their nation, while they tend to discriminate towards foreigners. This patriotism would allow for less conflict between groups and the community, and would prioritize the nation over other ethical issues in the international. This patriotism however, causes people to become ignorant and indifferent towards other nations’ problems. The solution to this as proposed by Nussbaum is educating people on different cultures, and this would cause people to interfere in unethical situations. However, if there is constant exposure to other cultures, and we are well informed some ethical concerns we may have, may be perfectly normal and acceptable in the other nation. If we interfere on that behalf would that be violating human rights as well? And as William mentioned if there are problems plaguing one’s own nation, is it appropriate to abandon our own problems out of obligation to other nations and the cosmopolitan?
ReplyDelete