Recent cosmopolitan thinking attempts to find a place for local (including national) attachment, but all of the proposals offered have been exposed to telling critique. There are objections to the claim that local obligations are only instances of cosmopolitan duty, and to the claim that we can give a moral justification to national societies as networks of mutual benefit.
This article claims that it is not mutual benefit but mutual risk that grounds compatriot preference. While exposure to coercion as such does not track national boundaries, exposure to the risks of state abuse, political choice, and social conformity provide us with a reason to take our compatriots' interests seriously. The same argument, however, displays the limits of this reasoning, and also grounds a demanding obligation to aid other societies.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Winter 2007 (21.4) • Essay
Expanding Europe: The Ethics of EU-Turkey Relations
The possible future EU membership of Turkey has become one of the most hotly debated topics both in the EU and within Turkey itself. Underlying ...
Winter 2007 (21.4) • Essay
American Religious NGOs in North Korea: A Paradoxical Relationship
Despite North Korea's antipathy to outside religious influence, it is primarily American NGOs with financial backing from religious organizations that have maintained development and exchange ...
Winter 2007 (21.4) • Feature
Human Rights Versus Emissions Rights: Climate Justice and the Equitable Distribution of Ecological Space
Arguing that issues of both emissions and subsistence should be comprehended within a single framework of justice, the proposal here is that this broader framework ...