Liberal nationalism and cosmopolitan justice

Abstract

Liberal nationalism and cosmopolitan distributive justice are mutually compatible ideals despite common perceptions of their inherent conflict. This compatibility is revealed by distinguishing between moral and institutional cosmopolitanism, and between cosmopolitanism as a doctrine of justice versus a doctrine of culture. While institutional and cultural cosmopolitanism may clash with nationalist projects, moral cosmopolitanism and global distributive justice do not require a world state or the rejection of cultural belonging. Nationalist arguments concerning self-determination, national affinity, and partiality fail to undermine global justice when evaluated within a liberal framework. Specifically, the right to self-determination is constrained by the requirement that nations do not utilize more than a fair share of global resources. Furthermore, the partiality shown to conationals is only permissible at the intermediate level of moral deliberation, remaining subordinate to a foundationally impartial global distributive scheme. Ultimately, the legitimacy of nationalist practices, such as the restriction of immigration, depends on a state’s commitment to outward resource redistribution. Liberal nationalism thus necessitates an active commitment to global egalitarianism to maintain its own internal consistency and moral standing. – AI-generated abstract.