Cosmopolitanism and Responsibility

Appiah begins Chapter Two by discussing the responsibility of cosmopolitans. He explains that the nature of a cosmopolitan is to feel responsible for the well-being of other cultures. That, because of the universal morality cosmopolitans experience, cosmopolitans consequently feel the need to help those that suffer. Appiah also discusses the anthropologists' aversion to such intervention. The anthropologist encourages us "to leave well enough alone" (Appiah, p 14). Much of this aversion is because of what anthropologists have seen throughout history. Even the best of intentions, as proven from witnessed history, can destroy cultures that could have otherwise survived.

The article I read, by Eduard Jordaan, explores world poverty and the lack of cosmopolitan support. Jordaan begins the article by arguing that if cosmopolitans did have the morality they claimed to, then they would be aiding those in poverty. Consequently, the lack of financial aid proves a lack of morality. This is a complex issue. Firstly, I don't agree that helping others is proof of morality. I think that the anthropologist thought of conserving other cultures shows more of their morality than trying to save other cultures would. To "save" a culture is very subjective. This subjectivity seems very counter intuitive to the cosmopolitan's thought process. How does a cosmopolitan know when to help a culture in need? When a culture doesn't have adequate food or clothing? Or when a culture is starving? Prevention of death from starvation seems like a good place to start. But wouldn't such help eventually infringe upon the culture of the society in need? Also, to financially aid those in need is not always a possibility, as Jordaan discusses.

As politics function today, there will always be poverty, and death by starvation. So what should an altruistic cosmopolitan do? They could take advice from the anthropologist, and conserve other cultures just as they are. They could drain their own finances trying to help a small portion of those who are starving to death, thus reducing their own quality of life without helping many others. They could intervene on a larger scale and risk destroying cultures in need. Or, they could realize that they can't change the world and give off the air of passivity that caused Jordaan to write his article in the first place.

It appears that Jordaan is displacing his ill feelings by blaming cosmopolitans for their seeming passivity. Shouldn't Jordan write to an audience who doesn't care about such matters, and attempt to educate that audience about their need to give financial aid? Instead he takes cosmopolitans, who feel morally responsible already, and basically tells them that they should be doing more. There really isn't much one can do besides giving time and money, which on a personal scale doesn't change much. A cosmopolitan could get into politics, and try to change things that way. But our country alone is in too much debt to save the world from starvation. Convincing those to do more than what is possible is like beating a dead horse. So many people do so much to help those in need, and it just isn't enough.


Kwame, Appiah. Cosmopolitanism, Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton & Co, 2006. Web

Jordaan, Eduard. Cosmopolitanism, Freedom, and Indifference: A Levinasian View. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. Jan-Mar 2009, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p83-106, 24p.