So you think you’re a cosmopolitan?

Growing up, there was probably an atlas, a globe, or a map of the world at home that your parents would sometimes sit you down in front of to point out the continents, the oceans, or the capitals of this or that nation. For many of us, this childhood experience will have sparked a love of travel, inculcating in us a certain cosmopolitanism.?

The origins of cosmopolitanism date back to antiquity: Diogenes of Sinope, an early Cynic, is cited as one of its precursors, although the first globe was not built until the 16th century, in the German city of Nuremberg. Before that, although world views were partial, an adventurous and enterprising spirit led explorers and traders across oceans and continents to learn about different cultures and contact with other civilisations. Even then, distances and orography were not precisely reproduced, and much of the planet terra incognita.

The industrial revolution, followed by the conquest of the poles, literally broadened our horizons, opening up the world as never before. Jules Verne’s?Around the World in Eighty Days?followed the adventures of Phileas Fogg and his hapless companion Passepartout, launching the age of global travel.

German philosopher Rüdiger Safranski believes the moon landing in 1969 and the subsequent images of our planet from space awakened in us a truly global awareness. Today, heightened understanding of sustainability and the threat posed to life by the climate emergency have arguably strengthened our cosmopolitanism and the conviction that collective action is the only way to save the planet.

Cosmopolitanism refers to those of us who feel they are citizens of the world, part of the human race: we may identify with our place of birth, our culture, but this is balanced by a certain sense of belonging to a wider community.

In 1795, at the age of 71, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote?To Perpetual Peace, a proposal on how to end warring between the nations of the world. Published as Napoleon launched his attempt to conquer Europe, the book epitomizes the cosmopolitan spirit and is one of the first calls for the creation of a global government, along the lines of today’s United Nations. Kant argues that world peace requires two conditions: the replacement of national armies with a single global force; and the creation of international legislation applicable to all countries.

As we know, Kant's ideas have only been partially implemented: military alliances such as NATO see themselves as global peacekeepers, and national armies still persist. At the same time, the multilateral organizations created in the last century such as the United Nations have a system of governance that prevents the effective resolution of military conflicts: the veto system of the countries that make up the Security Council. Even the European Union, the political structure with the greatest cession of sovereignty of its member states, has weights and counterweights that limit the scope of the most sensitive decisions, especially in the international arena.

From Kant's writing we can infer that there are at least three tendencies that drive a degree of moral progress, favoring a degree of global peace. First, the spread of democracy in most regions of the world - although in recent years the rise of populism has led some analysts to doubt whether we are facing an involution. Secondly, the civilizing power of world trade, which Kant described as the commercial spirit, which cannot coexist with war, and which prevails over time. This phenomenon has led me to repeat one of my favorite maxims: the best antidote to bad international politics is good business. And thirdly, the growing importance of public opinion, which two centuries after Kant predicted it, is a consolidated trend with the universal presence of social networks.

One of the most interesting contributions to our understanding of cosmopolitanism has been made by the Ghanaian-born philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah, professor at Princeton University. His book?Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, is a classic that addresses many of the issues raised by globalism. I will focus on two issues he addresses:

• The permissibility or condemnation of customs that may clash with the dominant ethical sensibilities of Western democracies; and,

• Whether there is a moral obligation to help disadvantaged individuals or communities in developing countries.?

Appiah starts by recognizing cross-cultural diversity in customs, usages and practices in all kinds of social spheres, taking in the family, the community, politics, and the workplace. There are common principles, but the level of agreement is relatively generic. Beyond the "golden rule" that can be stated in terms of "do unto others as you would do unto yourself", many rights and duties, authorizations or restrictions, differ according to region or culture. One example is the treatment of other living beings, and what constitutes animal cruelty. Those who are not familiar with rodeos or bullfighting, for example, see these practices as obvious cases of mistreatment, reprehensible and doomed to disappear in an advanced society, whereas there would be greater divergence of opinion over banning farms or the consumption of meat.

There are many other examples of customs and norms that can be criticized from a Western perspective. For example, opposition to the death penalty, especially when carried out by stoning and for offenses that many do not consider crimes, such as adultery. Similarly, bans on homosexuality or abortion are considered by most people in Western democracies as anachronistic and unacceptable. What to do then, when a nation is locked into its ancestral customs and refuses to evolve?

In my experience, it is never advisable to adopt a paternalistic attitude of moral superiority. The evangelical phrase is particularly appropriate in this case: "Let the person who is without sin cast the first stone". Most countries, even the most democratically advanced ones, could be the target of many criticisms, for example of lack of solidarity with the rest of the world, and in recent times we have seen the rise of populism and collective irrationality even in supposedly civilised communities.???

I would argue that among the most effective remedies to encourage a democratic and moral evolution of global society are those proposed by Kant. On the one hand, public opinion pressure has a decisive influence, and perhaps the most emblematic example is the suppression of apartheid in South Africa through international and corporate pressure.?

In addition, trade and business relations are undoubtedly a catalyst for rationality, freedom and equality. In today's multipolar environment, where questionable barriers have been imposed on trade, the open flow of talent, and the promotion of orderly migration, there is an urgent need to encourage international bodies to re-establish free international exchange. Good business fosters profitable relations between peoples. This is by no means a question of reviving imperialist or colonialist initiatives, but instead of devising the best version of international economic integration.?

Another question Appiah addresses is whether there is a moral obligation to help people in need in other countries.??In his view, a cosmopolitan spirit entails such an obligation, but the relevant question is what degree of involvement it would entail. For example, Australian philosopher Peter Singer uses the metaphor of the duty to provide relief to our global fellow human beings. Just as if we saw an accident victim in a ditch at risk of death, we would have an obligation to assist them, he explains, we have a similar duty to people at risk of death from hunger or starvation in other latitudes. On a similar vein, American thinker Peter Unger, takes this further, arguing that any citizen of an advanced society with the available resources has the duty to share their wealth with the poor, even if they are from other countries.

Appiah, aware of the differences between peoples, weighs these arguments and tries to reach conclusions that are acceptable to the majority, for example, the heroic behavior of the missionary does not seem plausible today. In?The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith writes that a person "of humanity in Europe" would be moved to know that there has been an earthquake in China and that there many victims, but that if he had no other more personal and selfish concern, he would sleep peacefully that night. Indeed, remoteness from other communities makes us more insensitive to their problems or calamities, and although considering ourselves cosmopolitan citizens should move us to contribute to just causes outside the domestic horizon, for example in favor of the Ukrainian people, the sense of commitment and urgency is lesser than that we feel toward our relatives, friends or acquaintances. The French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir illustrates this in?Les Belles Images, where a mother prevents her son from watching news footage of a catastrophe on television, lest he be traumatised.

Cosmopolitanism is a sentiment and an attitude that will continue to spread as the ideas Kant explored continue to evolve. This is where education can raise awareness of the predicaments of people in other countries. We do not live in a perfect world, but the least we can do is to work toward creating a more tolerant, integrated and just society.

--------------------

You may visit my INSTAGRAM account?here