Cosmopolitan Is the Greek Word,

¶ … cosmopolitan is the Greek word, derived from kosmopolit s that means the citizen of the world. The word has been used for the description of the 'wide variety of important views in moral and socio-political philosophy' (Luis, 2004). The word signify that 'all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, do belong to a single community, and that this community should be cultivated'. The terminology has been interpreted in different versions, which envisage the community in different ways, and the on the basis of different criteria i.e. 'some focusing on political institutions, others on moral norms or relationships, and still others focusing on shared markets or forms of cultural expression' (Ethan, 2006). The attachment evident between the cosmopolitan and philosophy has been associated with the 'challenges confronted by the commonly recognized attachments to fellow-citizens, the local state, parochially shared cultures, and the like' (Noah, 2006). The social and political affiliations are ignored when the arguments are forwarded by the cosmopolitan in the favor or specifically related to any particular community. The spirit of moral community is given consideration, 'which means only that living a good human life requires serving the universal community by helping human beings as such, perhaps by promoting the realization of justice and the guarantee of human rights' (Luis, 2004), however, there have been criticism on such perspective, and focus has been shifted towards the 'conceptualization of the universal community in terms of political institutions to be shared by all, in terms of cultural expressions to be appreciated by all, or in terms of economic markets that should be open to all' (Noah, 2006).

Contemporary Version

Moral cosmopolitanism is the common type of cosmopolitanism i.e. 'a moral commitment to helping human beings as such, much contemporary moral philosophy insists on the duty to aid foreigners who are starving or otherwise suffering, or at least on the duty to respect and promote basic human rights and justice'. The cosmopolitanism has been classified on the basis of extremist and moderate forms, the utilitarian assumptions are the functional parameters of the extremist form of the cosmopolitan i.e. 'the duty to provide aid neither gets weighed against any extra duty to help locals or compatriots nor increases in strength when locals or compatriots are in question' (Ethan, 2006). The moderate cosmopolitans have agreed over the scope and limitations of the responsibilities and duties for the provisions of the aids; however there has been the disclosure of the special duties towards compatriots. The political cosmopolitanism has been caused by the moral cosmopolitanism, the political perspective is supported by centralized world state, with features relevant to the federal system have been incorporated, 'with a comprehensive global body of limited power, and more limited international political institutions that focus on particular concerns' (Patrick, 2005), which has subsequently led towards the concept of the cosmopolitan democracy or republican cosmopolitanism. The economic cosmopolitan has been accused for its failure to pay required attention towards 'number of probable side-effects of a global free market' (Patrick, 2005), and special criticism has been observed against the economic cosmopolitan for its negligence towards 'the presupposition of large-scale migration or re-schooling when jobs disappear in one area, and the lack of a guarantee that there will be a sufficient supply of living-wage jobs for all world citizens, and the problem of the detrimental effects of income disparities. They are similarly accused of failing to take seriously the fact that there might be circumstances under which it would be profitable for some states to be protectionist or wage war, such as wars about markets or raw materials and energy' (Noah, 2006).

Version of Appiah

Appiah has interpreted the cosmopolitan as 'justice is opposed to any view which holds, as a matter of principle, that the norms of justice apply primarily within bounded groups comprising some subset of the global population' (Anthony, 2006). Appiah has explained that cosmopolitans shall provide the 'the local and our loved ones an extra measure of concern because it may be the only practical way to do well in the world' (Anthony, 2006), however the identity as human shall primarily forward substantial demands and obligations towards the society. The Appiah has signified the concept of equality, which has the potential to develop real moral, social and fiscal consequences. Appiah defended the cosmopolitanism, and provided substantial and concrete evidence to signify that the demands and requirements of the cosmopolitanism are 'basic and less severe' (Anthony, 2006). Appiah complained that cosmopolitans have been mocked on routine basis 'for their dilettantish appreciation of the exotic, for their embrace of an ideal of the flaneur in the global village' (Anthony, 2006). He expressed his dissatisfaction, and revealed that his understanding on 'cosmopolitanism with fangs is misplaced', he has frankly revealed his interest to defend partial cosmopolitanism against the forces of nationalist, who have adopted strange and inhumane attitude towards the foreigners. He identified rooted cosmopolitanism, which has acknowledged the 'loyalties and local allegiances' (Luis, 2004) and has determined the basic origin of the individual, he has further criticized and commented that 'creed disdains partialities of kinfolk and community may have a past, but it has no future' (Anthony, 2006). The theory of Appiah can has two distinct versions i.e. 'obligations to others, obligations that stretch beyond those to whom we are related by ties of kith and kind' (Anthony, 2006), and 'the recognition that human beings are different and that we can learn from each other's differences' (Anthony, 2006). he has proposed that communication shall be considered as effective tool for the dilution of the differences, and human differences can resolved through dialogue and discussion i.e. 'an ideal that has even penetrated to the basic commitments of liberalism and democracy' (Anthony, 2006). Appiah has been of the opinion that 'conversation is one way of habituating people to appreciate differences in others and foster a culture of respect' (Anthony, 2006), however he has confessed that the medium of dialogue can led to frustration possibly if not enlightenment. It has been researched that conversation are responsible for polarization, and groups with difference of opinion has emerged as strong contestants, and the possibility of the forge consensuses is void. Appiah has also revealed his concerns towards the complexity in identification, and has combined that 'with a more extensive account of how our moral duties might change when we encounter difference'. Appiah has argued that the assumption relevant to the cultural separation 'underlies both the easy, moral indifference of the cultural relativist and the arrogance of the imperialist' (Anthony, 2006). Appiah has further stressed over the need to make serious attempt for the understanding of differential elements and practices, and the significance of the difficulty and the necessity of the process has been revealed. The conversations are fundamental for the projection of the cosmopolitanism, because it helps in the revelation of 'a common evaluative cross-cultural language, even if particular value judgments reflect differences' (Anthony, 2006).

However the arguments of Appiah 'might more in need of amplification than amendment' (Anthony, 2006), his proposals shall be considered practical and attractive, and familiarity and adjustment shall be encouraged on foibles, rather then seeking solution through the application of force or argument. The theory of Appiah shall be marked clever because it has bluntly revealed that 'the strong version of our aid obligations to the foreign poor cannot be maintained'. In this regard he forwarded classic counter-cosmopolitan argument, as per which, it is the obligation of the group to remain 'consistent with partiality to our families, friends, and fellow citizens; whatever my basic obligations are to the poor far away, they cannot be enough, I believe, to trump my concerns for my family, my friends, my country' (Anthony, 2006). He further claims that effects of diarrhea can not be prevented even if we 'bring ourselves to the brink of bankruptcy or mutilation to avert the effects' (Anthony, 2006), rather the society has to play its part. Appiah has further argued that 'if so many people in the world are not doing their share, I cannot be required to derail my life to take up the slack' (Anthony, 2006). According to Appiah, the nation is responsible for providing basic amenities to the people of the world, 'once we grant the need for the nation-state, we must accept that we have special responsibility for the life and justice of our own' (Anthony, 2006). Appiah has attempted to derail the cosmopolitans who have adopted hard-line approach, and has attempted to embrace 'the very rhetoric of the anti-cosmopolitans to draw upon our prejudices' (Anthony, 2006). He has avoided tempering the obligations and responsibilities of the cosmopolitans, and has arrived 'awfully close to backpedaling so substantially as to gut the whole point of the enterprise' (Anthony, 2006). According to him, the condition of the scarcity shall be reviewed and revised by the cosmopolitan, and the 'cosmopolitan must believe that obligations to the foreign poor trump obligations to our fellow citizens, especially when our fellow citizens are, as a class, much better off than foreigners elsewhere living in destitute poverty' (Anthony, 2006), and has proposed that the intervention shall be considered legal if the country has committed genocide. Appiah concluded by remarking that, 'it is a pallid version of cosmopolitanism that barely deserves the name, and if we can excuse ourselves because others are shirking their responsibilities, we are barely principled' (Anthony, 2006).

Assessment of Theories

The contemporary political theorists considered cosmopolitanism as 'citizenship of the world, which is a critique of ordinary theories of political obligation, with their tendency to focus on our duties to fellow citizens, not to people elsewhere' (Patrick, 2005). The consequence of the cosmopolitanism is expected to be 'single world government with corresponding global citizenship' (Patrick, 2005). Surprisingly such aspirations have not discussed by the serious circles. The modified and renewed version of the cosmopolitanism includes 'everyone in the world in a single global web of mutual obligations' (Ulrich, 2006). However the reservations and criticism mounted against cosmopolitanism is relevant to the negligence of the 'obligations of reciprocity'; there has been consensus on the fact that the society has 'obligations to give benefits in return for benefits received'. The issue commonly observed by the society at large is relevant to the psychological possibility based upon the desirability claims, 'the elimination of a special motivating attachment to fellow-citizens is not possible, but the elimination of special motivating attachments to fellow-citizens is expected to develop 'certain desirable form of political life impossible'. In this context, the cosmopolitan has revealed two broad options i.e. 'the viability of politics as usual depends not upon certain beliefs that fellow-citizens deserve more of one's service, but upon commitments to the polity itself' (Patrick, 2005), therefore if the possibility of the strictly cosmopolitan is possible then 'a commitment to a universal set of principles embodied in a particular political constitution and a particular set of political institutions' (Patrick, 2005) is engaged. The practicability of such desirable politics has the potential to disarm the anti-cosmopolitan, provided that the denial of the form of political life is practical, and for this purposes the 'moral commitments run over into a discussion of political theory' (Ulrich, 2006).