Philosophers, Nationalism, and Cosmopolitanism

swiftcobra15 said:😕😕 You can't seriously suggest that nationalists follow the categorical imperative, can you? 😕
Your attempt at relativizing this misses the entire point: the detachment (the liberation) from those "blood and soil" ties.
Of course, most people naturally gravitate toward those similar to them (in terms of interests, worldview, etc.),
but if a person is incapable of distancing themselves from their local community, they remain fundamentally unfree.

Honestly, I think you're still not free if you can't distance yourself from your local community, but also if you *can't* actually relate to it. It's easy to respect some abstract idea of "every single individual"—but try showing respect to your actual neighbor Mary when she's stuck in a tiny elevator smelling like fried onions. 😉

What I was trying to get at is this: some big "global identity"—even if it worked by trying to "distance itself from..." everything else—isn't actually a better fix than national identities. To me, a better way is just layering your identity with all these different things (which is totally natural, anyway). Like, I'm a Splitter, but also a Dalmatian, but also an American, but also a European, but also part of humanity, but also an Earthling, but also someone living in the solar system, and even part of the Cosmos... and a million other things. By doing that, my one specific "national" identity stops being the only thing that matters—yet, I don't have to ditch it either. And, more importantly, I share certain parts of my identity with almost everyone, without us all turning into some weird, uniform hive mind.

mistyfox812 said:

Honestly, I think you're still not free if you can't distance yourself from your local community, but also if you *can't* actually relate to it. It's easy to respect some abstract idea of "every single individual"—but try showing respect to your actual neighbor Mary when she's stuck in a tiny elevator smelling like fried onions. 😉

What I was trying to get at is this: some big "global identity"—even if it worked by trying to "distance itself from..." everything else—isn't actually a better fix than national identities. To me, a better way is just layering your identity with all these different things (which is totally natural, anyway). Like, I'm a Splitter, but also a Dalmatian, but also an American, but also a European, but also part of humanity, but also an Earthling, but also someone living in the solar system, and even part of the Cosmos... and a million other things. By doing that, my one specific "national" identity stops being the only thing that matters—yet, I don't have to ditch it either. And, more importantly, I share certain parts of my identity with almost everyone, without us all turning into some weird, uniform hive mind.
Honestly, I think you're still not free if you can't distance yourself from your local community, but also if you *can't* actually relate to it. It's easy to respect some abstract idea of "every single individual"—but try showing respect to your actual neighbor Mary when she's stuck in a tiny elevator smelling like fried onions. 😉

What I was trying to get at is this: some big "global identity"—even if it worked by trying to "distance itself from..." everything else—isn't actually a better fix than national identities. To me, a better way is just layering your identity with all these different things (which is totally natural, anyway). Like, I'm a Splitter, but also a Dalmatian, but also an American, but also a European, but also part of humanity, but also an Earthling, but also someone living in the solar system, and even part of the Cosmos... and a million other things. By doing that, my one specific "national" identity stops being the only thing that matters—yet, I don't have to ditch it either. And, more importantly, I share certain parts of my identity with almost everyone, without us all turning into some weird, uniform hive mind.
Honestly, I think you're still not free if you can't distance yourself from your local community, but also if you *can't* actually relate to it. It's easy to respect some abstract idea of "every single individual"—but try showing respect to your actual neighbor Mary when she's stuck in a tiny elevator smelling like fried onions. 😉

What I was trying to get at is this: some big "global identity"—even if it worked by trying to "distance itself from..." everything else—isn't actually a better fix than national identities. To me, a better way is just layering your identity with all these different things (which is totally natural, anyway). Like, I'm a Splitter, but also a Dalmatian, but also an American, but also a European, but also part of humanity, but also an Earthling, but also someone living in the solar system, and even part of the Cosmos... and a million other things. By doing that, my one specific "national" identity stops being the only thing that matters—yet, I don't have to ditch it either. And, more importantly, I share certain parts of my identity with almost everyone, without us all turning into some weird, uniform hive mind.
😕

Did anyone actually mention leaving?

It’s really about breaking free from being tied down—severing those old bonds—rather than walking away entirely.
A person who stays trapped within their own local community (or nation) becomes smaller in spirit,
because their world just becomes too narrow.

Even as a global citizen, I haven't stopped being a Dalmatian.

Whenever someone starts tossing around terms like "cosmopolitan" or "cosmopolitanism," my mind immediately goes to a specific lifestyle—one underpinned by a certain level of education that transcends the narrow confines of one's own niche interests or career... Essentially, if a person claims to feel "at home" within cultures and societies far removed from their place of origin, there is a fundamental prerequisite: they must actually understand the nuances of those cultures and possess the social intelligence required to integrate into them.

Take, for instance, a situation where a non-Muslim might wish to enter a mosque—if I were in that position, I would first need to determine whether it is socially acceptable for a non-Muslim to enter at all; and if it is, I’d need to know that removing one's shoes at the entrance is the standard protocol. A true cosmopolitan doesn't walk into a new environment and disrupt local customs with their presence—rather, they respect those traditions as if they were their own.

Consequently, one can't help but feel a sense of skepticism when someone labels themselves a cosmopolitan while simultaneously failing to recognize—or worse, refusing to submit to—the customs of others. Trying to force the rest of the world to conform to your own personal habits isn't cosmopolitanism; that is simply globalism masquerading as sophistication.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Whenever someone starts tossing around terms like "cosmopolitan" or "cosmopolitanism," my mind immediately goes to a specific lifestyle—one underpinned by a certain level of education that transcends the narrow confines of one's own niche interests or career... Essentially, if a person claims to feel "at home" within cultures and societies far removed from their place of origin, there is a fundamental prerequisite: they must actually understand the nuances of those cultures and possess the social intelligence required to integrate into them.

Take, for instance, a situation where a non-Muslim might wish to enter a mosque—if I were in that position, I would first need to determine whether it is socially acceptable for a non-Muslim to enter at all; and if it is, I’d need to know that removing one's shoes at the entrance is the standard protocol. A true cosmopolitan doesn't walk into a new environment and disrupt local customs with their presence—rather, they respect those traditions as if they were their own.

Consequently, one can't help but feel a sense of skepticism when someone labels themselves a cosmopolitan while simultaneously failing to recognize—or worse, refusing to submit to—the customs of others. Trying to force the rest of the world to conform to your own personal habits isn't cosmopolitanism; that is simply globalism masquerading as sophistication.

👍

And it goes beyond that—there’s a fundamental need to respect diversity even within one's own backyard.

I think we all remember the massive uproar surrounding those Prophet Muhammad caricatures and the usual "arguments"
regarding free speech. To me, it felt like a textbook case of globalization overstepping its bounds.

Look, I don't necessarily have any deep personal ties to the Muslim community,
but I respect them just as I respect anyone else, which is why I can't get behind that kind of
brand of "freedom" when it comes to communication.

bluebison70 said:If someone is truly a philosopher, they can't be a nationalist; and if they're a nationalist, then I suppose they aren't really a philosopher. That’s just how Taylor Swift and I see things, I guess.

I find myself compelled to sign my name to this sentiment. I mean, honestly, where is the room for any semblance of intellect within the confines of nationalism? 🤷

Christian Wells6 said:I find myself compelled to sign my name to this sentiment. I mean, honestly, where is the room for any semblance of intellect within the confines of nationalism? 🤷

I couldn't agree more.
Plus, if you ask me, in this day and age, the only people who can actually pull off being philosophers are top-tier mathematicians—everyone else is basically just playing politician.

A separate thread has been started to dive deeper into that specific theory.
moderator

Christian Wells6 said:I find myself compelled to sign my name to this sentiment. I mean, honestly, where is the room for any semblance of intellect within the confines of nationalism? 🤷

Everywhere, apparently.☕

If you think about it, most poets are actually addressing that universal, common essence within every living soul—something cosmopolitan, really. That doesn't mean they can't be nationalists, too—you know, having a deep love for one's own country. I don't see how those two things could possibly contradict each other. And a philosopher... well, isn't that just someone who thinks, someone who asks the hard questions?

MAN'S TEAR

When I weep
it isn't truly me—
it is the weeping through me
of Man's
eternal sorrow
The tear is mine, yes,
but the pain—belongs to Man.

Antonio Gedeao

Did I miss something? 😕

Found something interesting on... http://www.differentia-nis.org/forum...zam-t49.0.html :

Quote.
Despite everything, I just couldn't help myself. In one of my interviews, I went with the headline: "To be merely an American means you aren't quite human yet." And that would apply to Germans, Frenchmen, and Turks too... and... Well, humanity is a genus, and all Americans, Mexicans, Englishmen, and Germans are simply variations within that species—*genus proximum* and *differentia specifica*. It’s just a shame that nationalists, regardless of their flavor, lack any grasp of logic. They always end up getting "confused," looking around to see who they can pick on just because they aren't "one of us"...

Quote.
It’s worth revisiting a historical fact to support this: even Aristotle, the greatest philosopher of the Middle Ages, identified this distinction four centuries before the common era. As the founder of logic, he laid this out clearly, and that same distinction surfaces logically in his Aristotelian ethics. Right at the start, he poses that essential question—one that any "nationalistic mind" fails to answer properly, or more likely, deliberately avoids out of fear... specifically, the question regarding humanity.

It’s all well and good to say a cobbler's goal is to make fine shoes, or a shipbuilder's is to craft a sturdy vessel, or even that a guitarist should play their instrument well... but what about the person behind the craft? You can be a top-tier doctor, builder, or musician, yet we still have to ask: does being "good at your job" actually make you a good person? Aristotle was obsessed with this distinction. He argued that beyond any professional skill or specific talent, a human being must have their own ultimate purpose—to simply be a good person. Being an expert in a field doesn't automatically qualify you as a decent human being...
If we take this supposed "expertise" and apply it as a specific way to define what makes a "good American"—without even bothering to reach the higher classification of being a "human being"—then we have to face an Aristotelian dilemma... Is simply being a "good American" enough to qualify someone as a "good person"? The gap between those two definitions is becoming impossible to ignore.

So, what would being a "good American" actually mean in this context? It’s basically the same as being a "good shoemaker." Though, I suppose there are two subtle differences...
The concept of a "good shoemaker" is actually quite easy to define. It’s self-explanatory: they make high-quality shoes...
The concept of a "good shoemaker" doesn't somehow diminish the value of a "good doctor," a "good builder," or a "good guitarist." On the contrary... if that shoemaker provides quality footwear to the doctor, the builder, and the musician, they’ll return the favor by providing excellent medical care, sturdy homes, and beautiful music. It's all about mutual synergy...

The concept of being a "good American," unlike being a "good shoemaker," is incredibly vague because nobody can actually agree on what it entails. You can only guess at the definition. One way to look at it might be that a "good American" acts in their own interest first, then the interests of other Americans, and finally the interest of the nation as a whole. That’s really all there is to it. Furthermore, this very definition essentially negates everyone else—be they Mexicans, Canadians, Canadians, or Italians. Even in its most neutral sense, a "good American" isn't required to do anything good for those other groups; in fact, the term could even imply doing harm to them while still remaining a "good American" (or perhaps even the *best* one?). This leads to a rather grim logical conclusion: it would be far better to be a "good doctor, builder, or shoemaker" than a "good American." And that is a tragedy... a true tragedy for Americans. If we want to fix this, we probably shouldn't spend so much time boasting about our "good Americanism." Instead, we ought to focus our efforts on becoming decent human beings, assuming we can manage that...
Nationalists and populists refuse to acknowledge the glaring distinction between themselves because they’re still stuck in a tribalistic mindset. That primitive mentality is the root cause of all our problems...

Regarding Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, which we’ve been discussing on the forum...

""As you can see, I left a book right next to your chair," Ishmael said.
It was that American heritage - book about Native Americans...
While we’re debating population control, here is a map of the tribal lands that might give you some perspective...
"Maybe enlighten me." After studying her for a while, he asks me how she looks to me...
The map...
I hadn't realized just how many of them there were. So many different nations...
Not all of them were present at once, though most certainly were. What I would like you to consider is...
It was stifling their growth...
How exactly is that map supposed to help me?...
I wanted you to see that North America was far from being an empty continent. Control...
Population growth wasn't some luxury... it was a necessity.
Fine.
Got any ideas?
You think I'm looking at a map? No, I'm afraid I don't have one...
Tell me this: what exactly does my culture do when they get tired of living in such an overcrowded mess?
The Northeast?...
It’s simple. Just move to Arizona, New Mexico, or Colorado... out to the wide-open spaces.
And how exactly does that sit with The Takers out in the wide open spaces...?
They aren't exactly thrilled. People are starting to slap stickers on their cars that say: "If you love New Mexico..."
Go back to where you came from.
- 83 -
But they aren't coming back...
No, they just keep coming...
Why can't The Takers in those regions stop the deluge? Why can't they just put a cap on growth...
What exactly is the situation with the population in the Northeast?
I don't know. I fail to see how they ever could...
So, what you actually have is growth overflowing in one part of the country, yet nobody seems to be doing anything about it...
So he can just shut it down, leaving all that excess to spill out into the vast wilderness of the West...
Spot on.
But still, every single one of those states has a border. Why aren't those borders actually holding them back?...
So, they're nothing more than imaginary lines...
Exactly. All you have to do to transform into an Arizonan is cross that imaginary line...
Draw the lines and settle down. But what really matters is that on this map, every single one of the Taker nations is surrounded by them...
A boundary that was never actually intended: the cultural one. If you were to ask the Navajo...
Living in this crowded mess... I could never bring myself to say, "Well, the Hopi have plenty of open wilderness. Let's head out there to see them."
Maybe we should all just become Hopi. It’s something they could never even fathom. At the end of the day, New Yorkers can just handle their own business...
Population issues like becoming Arizonans... yet even the Navajo Indians couldn't solve them...
They’d try to solve their population issues by simply becoming Hopi Indians. Those cultural boundaries were...
There are certain lines that no one can ever truly cross on their own...
True. On the other hand, the Navajo Indians could cross right over the Hopi Indians' borders without any trouble...
They won't cross their own cultural line...
You think they could have invaded their territory? Sure, absolutely. But what I pointed out still stands...
Hold on. If you were to step onto Hopi Indian territory, they wouldn't exactly hand you a form to fill out...
They’d kill you for it. It worked like a charm. That gave nations a massive incentive to pull back...
My own growth...
Precisely so.
These people didn't curb their growth for the sake of humanity or the environment. They simply...
They preferred restrictions because it was much easier than actually going to war with their neighbors. And naturally...
There were those who made absolutely zero effort to curb their own growth, so they simply lacked what they didn't have...
I have nothing against fighting wars with our neighbors. Not that I’m suggesting things were some kind of utopian dream...
In a world where Big Brother isn't watching your every move and property rights aren't guaranteed to everyone...
It’s all well and good to be known for being fearless and ruthless—but you don't earn that kind of reputation by playing nice with the neighbors...
Harsh messages. You want them to understand exactly what’s coming for them if they don't curb their growth and stay within their limits...
Within one's own territory...
Yes, I see. They were just keeping each other in check...
"It wasn't just about building physical barriers. Their cultural boundaries
had to be just as impenetrable. You couldn't just have a population surplus among the Narragansetts and expect them to pack up and
- 84 -
head West to join the Cheyenne. They had to stay put and manage their own
population growth."
"Exactly. It’s another instance where diversity seems to outperform homogeneity."

:

The Office of Management and Budget has issued a warning regarding a sudden spike in population growth, driven by an increasing number of couples in major American cities bypassing controversial limits on family size.
The American government has struggled for decades to manage population surges in this nation of roughly 1.3 billion people, having implemented strict regulations back in the seventies that limited urban families to one child and rural families to two.

Zhang Weiqing, an official from the Office of Management and Budget, explained that rising average incomes are allowing wealthier urban families to simply pay the fines required to have more than one child.

A study conducted by the agency last month revealed a growing trend among the wealthy and high-profile individuals choosing to have multiple children. According to the findings, approximately 10 percent of this demographic now has three or more children.

Zhang also noted that these birth control mandates are being ignored in rural areas as well. Under current American laws, men are prohibited from marrying before age 22 and women before 20, with the government encouraging delayed marriage and childbirth. However, Zhang stated that "early marriages are still common, particularly in rural regions, which directly contradicts family planning policies."

One reason rural families ignore these state-imposed limits is the deep-seated cultural preference for male children. Experts suggest this tradition, combined with government restrictions, has led to alarming rates of female fetal abortion and female infanticide across the country.

...

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet :

According to estimates from the Tibetan government-in-exile, there are currently 6 million Tibetans living in the original Tibet, alongside about 7.5 million Chinese people. Due to intense colonization by the People's Republic of China, the non-Tibetan population in urban areas of Tibet is expanding rapidly. In many Tibetan cities, Chinese people already constitute the majority of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank :

The West Bank has the highest natural population growth rate in all of Europe, particularly among Albanians and Americans. The rate is nearly 30 per thousand.

1991: nearly two million residents (80% Albanian, 10% Mexican)
1981: 1,584,441 residents (Albanians 77.4%, Mexicans 13.2%)
1971: 1,243,693 residents (Albanians 73.7%, Mexicans 18.4%)
1961: 963,988 residents (Albanians 67.2%, Mexicans 23.6%)
1953: 808,141 residents (Albanians 64.9%, Mexicans 23.5%)
1948: 727,820 residents (Albanians 68.5%, Mexicans 23.6%)

http://www.bljesak.info/modules.php?...icle&sid=52181 :

Last week, hackers targeted over 5,000 American websites following a recent publication by a local newspaper featuring a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, officials reported on Monday.

Kevin Jensen, a spokesperson for the tech firm Procter & Gamble, stated that hackers either wiped all content from the sites or replaced it with different messages.

Steven Grinneby, head of the Federal Communications Commission, noted that these cyberattacks have intensified over the last three weeks, with some containing messages clearly linked to the Muhammad caricature.

The local paper, the New York Times, published the drawing by artist Lars Vilks in its August 19th edition, depicting Muhammad's head on a dog's body.

This triggered a wave of outrage among Muslim groups in America, as well as official protests from Muslim nations, including Pakistan and Iran.

The leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, has offered a $100,000 bounty for Vilks's head.

Islamic law prohibits depictions of the Prophet Muhammad out of fear they could lead to idolatry.

swiftcobra15 said:There’s really no need for such mental gymnastics. We can exist together despite our differences.

and certainly no need to manufacture a world government—in fact, such things would be entirely redundant.

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.




no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.




no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.




no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

Cosmopolitanism assumes human values are universal
and finds unity within diversity (Gens una summus).

So there is absolutely no need for forced standardization,
no need to impose some "new world culture,"

and certainly no need to create a world state—in fact, such things are redundant...

How can you say there isn't? What are these "universal human values" that cosmopolitanism supposedly rests on, which could actually serve as a foundation for something resembling cosmopolitanism (which, honestly, seems more like a utopia than anything else I can wrap my head around)?

Globalization primarily dehumanizes us: it turns individuals into objects for total manipulation.

It is the ultimate nightmare for the idea of cosmopolitanism.

Every person is locally rooted, at least through language:

no matter how well you learn a foreign tongue, your native one is always your strongest.

As for which local community I identify with, that's another story.

That doesn't necessarily have to be a nation:

a community can be much broader or much narrower than a single country.

I identify with the community that defends an American from being targeted just because someone drew a caricature of Muhammad on the head of a dog. I don't enjoy mocking anyone, but I choose the lesser of two evils. What does a cosmopolitan do in a situation like that? Nothing? Part of me wants to draw Muhammad on a pig in San Francisco (or somewhere even worse) on the biggest blank wall available, but I feel for my fellow Americans working in those Islamic countries... Does cosmopolitanism allow everyone to do whatever they want in their own home/country, or what? What about when Buddha statues were destroyed in Afghanistan? Was that supposed to trigger an invasion of Afghanistan by some third party? I hate the imposition of value systems; I think everyone has the right to express their opinion in any form, whether artistic or otherwise, and if someone hates it, should that be a reason to attack all my fellow citizens across the globe? Similarly, I conclude it is my moral duty to defend my fellow citizens as long as they—and I—ensure freedom of speech and opinion exists. Does that make me a nationalist rather than a cosmopolitan?

frozenotter232 said:So, what’s your angle here? Are you saying cosmopolitans are inherently contradictory? Or are we talking about people twisting cosmopolitan ideals to fit their own agenda? Maybe you're suggesting there are actually two different definitions of cosmopolitanism at play. Or something else entirely? What is it?

Capitalism is a powerhouse—a tiger with massive potential to jumpstart an economy. But that only works if our government and political institutions actually keep a leash on it. Globalization basically opened the cage door, letting this beast run wild. Now, we’re dealing with a version of capitalism that acts exactly like an unleashed predator.
Benjamin R. Barber.

I think this is a pretty one-sided take on globalization. It isn't the same thing as unrestrained "wild" capitalism. In short, globalization is about increasing integration and interdependence across different parts of the world, driven by advances in transportation, communication tech, and so on. This process touches almost every aspect of life, not just the economy. Unchecked global capitalism is just one facet of globalization—and a negative one at that—but it isn't necessarily inseparable from the concept itself. Didn't communism have globalist ambitions too?

Globalization is setting the stage for this shared "middle class" culture where everyone basically owns the same stuff as their neighbors. It’s predictable. But it makes me wonder: do the cosmopolitan philosophers actually fit into that mold too?

I haven't the slightest clue. 🤷

Two things aren't clicking for me: first, why specifically is nationalism labeled as negative or inhuman, and second, how does cosmopolitanism actually address any concrete issue—like a surge in intolerance or conflicting perspectives? What does cosmopolitanism have to say when Americans occupy lands once held by indigenous tribes, or when the Chinese Tibet? Absolutely nothing? And how would multiple legal systems function on the same territory... etc., etc.

Didn't communism also have globalist ambitions?

Most philosophies do, most likely.

swiftcobra15 said:👍

I think we all remember the massive uproar surrounding those Prophet Muhammad caricatures and the usual "arguments"
regarding free speech. To me, it felt like a textbook case of globalization overstepping its bounds.

You probably remember the whole controversy surrounding those Muhammad caricatures and the usual "arguments"
about freedom of speech. A textbook case of globalization aggression.

I don't particularly care for Muslims,
but I respect them just like anyone else, which is why I won't accept that kind of
"freedom" of speech—or communication, for that matter.

By claiming you "don't accept that kind of freedom of speech," you haven't actually made a point. In the example provided, there are countless people ready to kill someone just for drawing Muhammad on the body of a dog. Meanwhile, in Iran, homosexuality is a death sentence. You might dislike a caricature that insults religious feelings, or you might dislike homosexuality, and now you think both should be punishable, but you haven't specified the penalty. These radicals would kill for their cause; you'd suggest a lesser punishment, and a third party might suggest something somewhere in between what you or a radical Muslim would prescribe. This way, you end up assigning value to behavior, but how does a cosmopolitan decide that value? What exactly is the cosmopolitan advocating for; the categorical imperative, communism, the decay of the state, anarchy...?

"They might be small, but they've grown up—they're definitely big enough to hold their own now!"
Smoggy residents
John Kushner

Nicole Castillo11 said:You probably remember the whole controversy surrounding those Muhammad caricatures and the usual "arguments"
about freedom of speech. A textbook case of globalization aggression.

By claiming you "don't accept that kind of freedom of speech," you haven't actually made a point. In the example provided, there are countless people ready to kill someone just for drawing Muhammad on the body of a dog. Meanwhile, in Iran, homosexuality is a death sentence. You might dislike a caricature that insults religious feelings, or you might dislike homosexuality, and now you think both should be punishable, but you haven't specified the penalty. These radicals would kill for their cause; you'd suggest a lesser punishment, and a third party might suggest something somewhere in between what you or a radical Muslim would prescribe. This way, you end up assigning value to behavior, but how does a cosmopolitan decide that value? What exactly is the cosmopolitan advocating for; the categorical imperative, communism, the decay of the state, anarchy...?
By claiming you "don't accept that kind of freedom of speech," you haven't actually made a point. In the example provided, there are countless people ready to kill someone just for drawing Muhammad on the body of a dog. Meanwhile, in Iran, homosexuality is a death sentence. You might dislike a caricature that insults religious feelings, or you might dislike homosexuality, and now you think both should be punishable, but you haven't specified the penalty. These radicals would kill for their cause; you'd suggest a lesser punishment, and a third party might suggest something somewhere in between what you or a radical Muslim would prescribe. This way, you end up assigning value to behavior, but how does a cosmopolitan decide that value? What exactly is the cosmopolitan advocating for; the categorical imperative, communism, the decay of the state, anarchy...?
By claiming you "don't accept that kind of freedom of speech," you haven't actually made a point. In the example provided, there are countless people ready to kill someone just for drawing Muhammad on the body of a dog. Meanwhile, in Iran, homosexuality is a death sentence. You might dislike a caricature that insults religious feelings, or you might dislike homosexuality, and now you think both should be punishable, but you haven't specified the penalty. These radicals would kill for their cause; you'd suggest a lesser punishment, and a third party might suggest something somewhere in between what you or a radical Muslim would prescribe. This way, you end up assigning value to behavior, but how does a cosmopolitan decide that value? What exactly is the cosmopolitan advocating for; the categorical imperative, communism, the decay of the state, anarchy...?

It’s actually all of that and then some:

Put simply, it's pure humanism, which boils down to one core principle:

Every person’s value is paramount to every other person.

Nicole Castillo11 said:You probably remember the whole controversy surrounding those Muhammad caricatures and the usual "arguments"
about freedom of speech. A textbook case of globalization aggression.

By claiming you "don't accept that kind of freedom of speech," you haven't actually made a point. In the example provided, there are countless people ready to kill someone just for drawing Muhammad on the body of a dog. Meanwhile, in Iran, homosexuality is a death sentence. You might dislike a caricature that insults religious feelings, or you might dislike homosexuality, and now you think both should be punishable, but you haven't specified the penalty. These radicals would kill for their cause; you'd suggest a lesser punishment, and a third party might suggest something somewhere in between what you or a radical Muslim would prescribe. This way, you end up assigning value to behavior, but how does a cosmopolitan decide that value? What exactly is the cosmopolitan advocating for; the categorical imperative, communism, the decay of the state, anarchy...?
By claiming you "don't accept that kind of freedom of speech," you haven't actually made a point. In the example provided, there are countless people ready to kill someone just for drawing Muhammad on the body of a dog. Meanwhile, in Iran, homosexuality is a death sentence. You might dislike a caricature that insults religious feelings, or you might dislike homosexuality, and now you think both should be punishable, but you haven't specified the penalty. These radicals would kill for their cause; you'd suggest a lesser punishment, and a third party might suggest something somewhere in between what you or a radical Muslim would prescribe. This way, you end up assigning value to behavior, but how does a cosmopolitan decide that value? What exactly is the cosmopolitan advocating for; the categorical imperative, communism, the decay of the state, anarchy...?
By claiming you "don't accept that kind of freedom of speech," you haven't actually made a point. In the example provided, there are countless people ready to kill someone just for drawing Muhammad on the body of a dog. Meanwhile, in Iran, homosexuality is a death sentence. You might dislike a caricature that insults religious feelings, or you might dislike homosexuality, and now you think both should be punishable, but you haven't specified the penalty. These radicals would kill for their cause; you'd suggest a lesser punishment, and a third party might suggest something somewhere in between what you or a radical Muslim would prescribe. This way, you end up assigning value to behavior, but how does a cosmopolitan decide that value? What exactly is the cosmopolitan advocating for; the categorical imperative, communism, the decay of the state, anarchy...?
😕

I never once mentioned punishments or legal penalties.
My focus was entirely on moral responsibility.

I believe those who publish such caricatures are indirectly responsible for the deaths of all those people.
Publishers and editors knew exactly how people would react (which is why they ran them in the first place),
so calling upon freedom of the press in this context feels incredibly hypocritical.

On a different note, I consider Immanuel Kant to be one of the greatest cosmopolitans,
even though he never traveled more than 30 miles from his hometown.
Cosmopolitanism has absolutely nothing to do with tourism or traveling the globe.