Caney's 'International distributive justice': A Response

Abstract

Comments on Simon Caney’s ‘International Distributive Justice’ (2001), pointing out that this masterly guide to debates on global justice carries an equivocation about the meaning of ‘cosmopolitanism’ between radical and mild versions. Caney presents cosmopolitanism as a claim for distributive justice on grounds of individual properties rather than cultural or national membership. This cosmopolitanism, as described, would be included within all international ethics and political philosophy. Carey presents nationalism and cosmopolitanism as incompatible. While he seeks to reconcile the two concepts, he actually presents a vindication of cosmopolitanism. However, a mirror argument could be presented for distributive justice as both a national and a global duty. A better distinction is between cosmopolitans and their opponents who believe concern for global inequality is necessary only when the inequality involves poverty, exploitation, and other basic needs. Cosmopolitanism desires social justice in terms of uniformity while, in direct opposition, communitarianism and nationalism visualizes diversity among different world cultures. 4 References.