<Articles>Kant and Cosmopolitanism : Is Cosmopolitanism Naive?

Abstract

Cosmopolitanism is sometimes criticized for its ignoring of individual and communal relationships in our particular lives. Strict cosmopolitans in the moral sphere such as Singer, O'Neil and Nussbaum claim that our duties to others should not be limited to local people or compatriots. Contrary to this stance, anticosmopolitans such as Maclntyre believe that there cannot be any obligations without close, communal relationships. In this paper, I shall try to give some contribution to the above debate through Kant's cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitan education by tapping its potential for the contemporary world. Kant's cosmopolitanism has closeness with respecting the humanity of a person as both an end and a means to an end, and has three different dimensions : (1) the individual, (2) the national, (3) the cosmopolitan society. These three dimensions of cosmopolitanism consist of teleological and pluralistic elements and manifest itself in dynamic movement in terms of thinking and acting. Therefore cosmopolitanism is not a static and naive idea but regulative one, which can include animals and plants, and which can be an active guide that helps us to communicate and understand each other.