In Unit 3, we expand on the general concept of human rights and justice in a global context. What is the scope of ethics and ethical issues? Next, how do we conceptualize principles of justice when designing systems of global justice? Finally, what role does consent play when we follow or create our own established principles of justice?
How do universalism and relativism support applied political theories, such as nationalism and cosmopolitanism? The readings show that different types of cosmopolitanism exist. Similarly, while most nationalist perspectives oppose global justice, some are sympathetic on ideological grounds. However, they frequently dismiss the concept of global justice in terms of the idea of world citizenry.
How do we distribute scarce resources on a global scale? Theories of distributive justice typically begin on a domestic scale, as defined by the citizens within a territorial state. However, this delimitation conflicts with the fundamental liberal principle that every human is entitled to equal moral consideration, regardless of morally-arbitrary facts like luck and place of birth. Equality of moral consideration requires a global scope for distributive justice, accompanied by a range of principles, rules, and institutions.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 3 hours.
Nationalism refers to the political ideology that a nation – a population bound by shared history and culture in a geographic region – is the ideal political unit. It argues that people have a particular affinity for members of their nation, and that this affinity makes governance easier and better.
However, nationalism has also always had explicitly exclusionary connotations. Who gets to be viewed as a legitimate member of the nation? Who is seen as foreign, or as not belonging? Who is entitled to justice? A nationalist sense of identity is often developed along ethnic lines, meaning that people who do not fall into the majority or dominant ethnic group can be subject to discrimination and violence.
In the United States and Europe, white nationalism has been on the rise in recent years, and threatens the rights and safety of non-white people in those countries. Cosmopolitanism, in contrast, argues for a globally-engaged political consciousness. These theories present differing views on how we can best advance the cause of human rights.
Watch this video, which introduces the debate between nationalist and cosmopolitan views on justice, human rights, and the obligations people and states have to each other.
In this article, the authors make a case for civic and cosmopolitan nationalism. They try to reconcile the perceived conflict between nationalism and cosmopolitanism and present a new understanding of nationalism. Do you believe the author's arguments are successful?
Read this article. Nils Holtug criticizes Miller's approach to global justice and offers a stance grounded in global egalitarianism. Nationality becomes a less defining factor in the pursuit of global justice.
Read this article. David Miller says nationality is central to an individual's identity and supports giving nationalist sentiments priority over those that span larger justice principles.
Read this article which delves into the political philosphy of modern white nationalism in the United States. It provides insight into how white nationalism operates not only in America, but also can help inform your understanding of similar movements in Europe. This piece was published in 2005, years before the white nationalist movement began to gain mainstream media attention in the United States, but its insights are striking for understanding the current political atmosphere. Consider the author's arguments about what nationalism rooted in a racial identity means for the pursuit of justice.
While many of the sources we have reviewed have considered how human rights pertain to individuals, distributive justice requires us to think about how inequality among states can affect the human rights of entire populations. If human rights are more difficult to achieve in poorer countries, how do we promote their citizens' human rights? If these countries are poor due to a history of colonization and exploitation from wealthier countries, what obligations do more prosperous nations have to help them?
This article considers a fundamental question in global justice: what do richer countries owe poorer countries? More generally, what obligations do we have to each other across national boundaries?
This article grapples with the question of why some countries are richer and some are poorer. Goran Collste finds we can usually attribute these differences to the history of colonization: the colonizing power structured the economies of its colonies to benefit themselves, not the residents. This legacy continues to affect economic development today. With this history in mind, Collste reexamines the question of the obligations wealthier nations have toward poorer nations.
This section digs deeper. The theorists introduce new ways of thinking about this issue and consider how economic development plays into human rights and global justice.
In this article, the author introduces one of the most influential modern works about justice and the criticisms that other scholars have raised. Pay attention to John Rawls's idea of the veil of ignorance, and consider questions raised in the previous section about inequality under those circumstances.
This video addresses the issue of development through case studies of famine. While we usually think famine results from natural disasters, scholars Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze claim famine is a political event that results from policy decisions. They delve deeper and develop broader theories about development and justice.
Use this activity to practice contextualizing the information you've learned in Unit 3. Once you submit your answers, evaluate them using the provided guide to responding.