Cosmopolitan Presumptions? On Martha Nussbaum and her Commentators

Abstract

This article presents a framework for analysis of discourses on ethical cosmopolitanism, and applies it to Martha Nussbaum's Frontiers of Justice (2006), with comparisons to the views of other authors. After outlining the book's form of ethical cosmopolitanism, the article considers the psychological, philosophical and sociological presumptions, the methodology of abstraction, the implicit audiences, and the programmatic targets and implied strategy of social change. It links and comments on sister papers by Giri, McCloskey, Murphy, Nederveen Pieterse and Truong.

A changing landscape for teaching and learning in International Development Studies: an introduction to the special issue

“…However, it does create direct connections to the much more theoretically grounded debates about cosmopolitanism (from the Greek kosmopolites for "citizen of the world"), which might begin to address the relative absence of serious engagement in IDS programs with questions of ethics. While the universalist pretentions of cosmopolitan thinking have been criticised by some IDS scholars (see Gasper 2006), at its core cosmopolitanism explores questions about the ethical obligations of all humans towards all other humans, regardless of their nationality or membership in other communities (Wallace and Held 2010). Although there is much debate on what those specific obligations consist of, to whom they apply, and how far they extend (Pogge 2002;Jaggar 2010), consensus does exist that all humans possess both positive obligations to help other humans in need and negative obligations not to cause harm, either directly or indirectly.…”

A Philosophical Examination of Social Justice and Child Poverty

“…(Robeyns 2009, 114) Martha Nussbaum, who has expanded the capability approach to a minimal (partial) theory of justice, has not as well addressed in much depth the question of responsibilities, as a result of the fact that she understands the approach as providing guidelines for states to secure a minimal dignity of life for its citizens. Related questions of responsibilities beneath or above the state level are not so much her concern, and it is unclear how responsibilities between states and beyond state borders should be divided to make sure that every human on this planet is put above the threshold in the central capabilities she selected in her list (Gasper 2006). She has outspokenly rejected the idea of establishing a world state but also argued that there is a need for principles of global governance, which she understands as thin and decentralized (Nussbaum 2006).…”

Reply: In Defence of Global Political Liberalism

“…My audience, then, consists mainly of people around the world who care about the issue of human development. I hope they will take up what I say, and if they choose to implement it, that would be very nice, but then, as Gasper says, ‘one might hold that primary responsibility for use of her ideas would lie with whichever bodies adopt them’ (Gasper, 2006: 1239). I would not have it any other way.…”