Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues of Our Time) Paperback – Illustrated, February 17, 2007

We can move to a better neighborhood or to a different country. But all humanity is our neighbor, like them or not.Mr. Appiah, the renowned Princeton philosophy professor, challenges us with the paradox of a common humanity, among which, different ethnic and religious groups often do not share customs, or even the same values. The Cosmopolitan thesis is that, despite being strangers in many ways, our common humanity provides a basis for mutual respect and compassion.What anchors the paradox at one end is that, for most of human history, we knew only our own kind, with limited need to understand, let alone to accept, the customs of people in other groups. Over the last few centuries, increased trade and communication, as well as industrial pollution and international terrorism, has changed framework. Since our actions can affect "lives everywhere," ethical living implies responsibilities beyond our immediate environment and social group. Humanity has become, in a sense, one "tribe."Mr. Appiah reminds us that the view of being a citizen of the world reflects intellectual traditions at least as old as classical times; that Marcus Aurelius, whose works were attractive to many Christian intellectuals, himself sought to suppress Christianity; that, then again, Christianity, whose allegiances have often fueled persecution, originally spread from Paul's assertion of "neither Jew nor Greek . . . . for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Yet, Mr. Appiah also reminds us, respect for those different includes respect for their freedom to be separate, as in the case of the Amish in the United States.If you find yourself often straddling the same paradox and long to find a partner in the journey, you will find one in Mr. Appiah's short (196 pp.), varied, and challenging book. He provides examples of agreeing, yet agreeing to disagree. The non-Muslim for example, would agree on the devout's right to make a hajj to Mecca, but may not agree that a Deity has commanded it, or that avoiding pork is appropriate. The paradox is exemplified in explanations of the natural world. Even an agreement on facts leaves ambiguity in theories; e.g., whether it is germs or (many tiny) spirits that cause disease. Mr. Appiah makes a case that there are even fewer compelling arguments based on fact in the determination of values. The journey continues to the Ghana of the author's father, where we find out about "taboos" dealing with bush meat and menstruating women. A distinction made here is that, while taboos separate peoples, or classes within peoples (rulers, nobles, and slaves), morals differ in that they guide us in the treatment of others, so a taboo is a distinction with less of a difference. Even so, taboos are common to all cultures; westerners eat pigs but not cats.A cosmopolitan understands and can live with difference, even when the differences are mutually understood. A "universalist," on the other hand, expects agreement through understanding. Mr. Appiah has us step back from taboos, to the more engaging questions of values. Still, while most people in a society value fair punishment, not all agree that punishment is worth the risk of punishing the innocent; while men in different societies relate their honor to the chastity of related women, not all of these men would agree that honor compels killing a woman who is raped. We find that reasoned argument does not compel either of these positions to those taking them. There seems to be a sort of getting "used to," that even a great mathematician (von Neumann) would endorse as reason's companion.Mr. Appiah's treads lightly across serious subjects, and perhaps that is a cosmopolitan virtue. He contends that strangers are beyond communication mainly when they are imaginary; that is, when they are people we have not met one-to-one. Also, that, among diversity, there are inevitable commonalities: "I have failed to get people interested in Zeno's paradox in three continents." That, when caring about others requires an "out-group," one's caring is perhaps mere self-comfort.Mr. Appiah explores the concept of cultural preservation. He proposes a difference between preserving culture and preserving cultures. He challenges the idea of "authenticity," as limited by the facts of history, such as the role of trade in the development of kente cloth and bagpipes. The need to "preserve" is argued as an ignorance of how free non-Westerners are to interpret American TV and consumer products. At worst, an attitude of cultural preservation condescends. We learn that the ancients saw the value of "contamination": stoic teachers traveling between city states, an African-born playwright, Publius Terentius Afer, using Greek ideas in Roman drama. We are offered, quoting this playright, a golden rule: "I am human: nothing is alien to me."We are given a glimpse of the founder of the scouting movement, collecting (or looting?), as a prelude to a discussion of cultural objects. Mr. Appiah takes us to the question of whether a Norse goblet is more valuable in a Spanish museum or in a Norwegian family's living room. Cosmopolitanism proposes that the connection through ethnic identity across centuries is no less real than the connection through a common humanity.Mr. Appiah includes some discussion of counter-cosmopolitans, for example, Islamic fundamentalists, to help us understand by way of contrast. The universal aspect in this case, and in others, is one that looks beyond borders or ethnicity, and excludes those who disbelieve. This discussion evokes the cosmopolitan understanding that different people will have different values, and that this is quite acceptable (with some exception for values not worth having). The cosmopolitan knows that one can learn from those with whom one disagrees. The counter-cosmopolitan sees nothing to be gained by reaching out from the faithful.Finally, we are given the author's reflection on questions of sacrifice for the benefit of others. So, how much would we sacrifice to save the life of a child in a foreign country with nutrition and medicine? One hundred dollars? If that much, why not more - say, another hundred dollars. Or is there a point when it's more important to go the opera? And - is it really possible to save another's life for more than a few days, given the harsh realities of their life situation. Is it as easy as deciding to ruin a suit in order to save a child from drowning, and why? What is the principle behind the answers to these questions, if there is one.The journey continues: Mr. Appiah provides an informative and provocative guide to how to treat strangers, meant of course, in the large. I do not guarantee the reader will find comfortable answers, only insights and surprising information, and that your answers, which are how you actually live, will now have questions to challenge them.

One of the most pernicious ideas has spung from the myth that we are necessarily separated and segregated into groups that are defined by criteria like gender, language, race, religion or some other kind of boundary. And it is easy to see that these boundaries are a major cause of conflict.The author of this enthralling book - Kwame Anthony Appiah - challenges this kind of separative thinking by resurrecting the ancient philosophy of "cosmopolitanism." This school of thought that dates back almost 2500 years to the Cynics of Ancient Greece. They first articulated the cosmopolitan ideal that all human beings were citizens of the world. Later on, these ideas were elaborated by another group of philosophers: the Stoics.According to Appiah, the influence of cosmopolitanism has stretched down the ages and through to the Enlightenment. He takes Immanuel Kant's notion of a League of Nations and the Declaration of the Rights of Man to be two manifestations of this ancient idea.Appiah sees cosmopolitanism as a dynamic concept based on two fundamental ideas. First is the idea that we have responsibilities to others that are beyond those based on kinship or citizenship. Second is something often forgotten: just because other people have different customs and beliefs from ours, they will likely still have meaning and value. We may not agree with someone else, but mutual understanding should be a first goal.The book is full of personal experiences. I doubt that anyone else could have written it: His mother was an English author and daughter of the statesman Sir Stafford Cripps, and his father a Ghanaian barrister and politician, who reminded his children to remember that they were "citizens of the world."Appiah was educated in Ghana and England and has taught in both countries. He now holds a chair of Philosophy at Princeton. He is no starry eyed idealist, and he knows that differences between groups and nations cannot be wished away or ignored. But he contends, rightly, I think, that differences can be accepted without being allowed to become barriers.As he says, "Cosmopolitans suppose that all cultures have enough overlap in their vocabulary of values to begin a conversation. But they don't suppose, like some Universalists, that we could all come to agreement if only we had the same vocabulary." The reason is simply this: most of us arrive at our values not on the basis of careful reasoning, but by lifelong conditioning and subjective beliefs and attitudes.In parts of Europe, there have recently been misgivings about the growing diversity and multiculturalism of countries like the United Kingdom, with people asking whether it is doing no more than fracturing society. Appiah tackles this question head on. He has this to say, "If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference that they long to escape. There simply is no decent way to sustain those communities of difference that will not survive without the free allegiance of their members."Cosmopolitanism, balances our "obligations to others" with the "value not just of human life but of particular human lives," what Appiah calls "universality plus difference." He remains skeptical about simple maxims for ethical behavior such as the Golden Rule. He swiftly demonstrates its failings as a moral precept. He argues that cosmopolitanism is the name not "of the solution but of the challenge."This is an important book that will inevitably be controversial. In a world that is becoming more interconnected and shrinking by the day, and where the "clash of cultures" threatens our existence, Appiah has many new perspectives as he articulates a precise yet flexible ethical manifesto. He does not claim to have all the answers, but this book should be of interest to all of us as we try to make sense of the turmoil, challenges and opportunities of our globalizing world.

Reading through Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism, I was pretty fascinated by the fact that references to its underlying concept date back to the fourth century BC, which interestingly, was a time where this term’s very meaning could not have been understood in the manner as we possibly can grasp it today.Interestingly, I had watched a TED talk by Appiah not too long back in which he had drawn a comparison between the Asante community and the Western world to note that in case of the former, there were a set of assumptions dictated by religion, which any explanation of either the physical or the spiritual had to satisfy before possibly gaining widespread acceptance. In this regard, Appiah’s example of the virus being the basis of some of the diseases and the parallel explanation for that through witchcraft as understood in his Asante community, was pretty insightful.In chapter 7, Appiah speaks approvingly of the exchange (or contamination) that comes about as a result of globalization. While the benefits he attributes to this process are significant, he fails to properly identify the associated harms. An example of such a harm can be drawn from Equiano’s description of how slave traders who brought European goods to exchange for slaves, essentially incited the natives to indulge in slave trade and consequently, disrupted the previously established economic equilibrium of the native community.While I enjoyed reading Cosmopolitanism, I couldn’t help but sense its utopian nature, which we can attempt to approximate but are not very likely to attain.

One of my favourite books!

The quality of the book was great. But unfortunately I did not like the content, too shallow for my taste. Some of the concepts were interesting

Awesome book!

A really important work by a formidable writer.