Philosophy of Ethics in a Global Society Report (Assessment)

March 27, 2021 by Essay Writer


This name was derived from the Greek word ‘kosmopolitê’ that denotes a citizen of the world. Therefore, cosmopolitanism is the conviction that all human beings on earth, irrespective of their physical separation or political associations, can exist as one in the same society.

This ideology aims to form universal solidarity with a positive attitude towards difference. It demands that the societies and cultures of the world should communicate freely. This will perpetuate the formation of peaceful, global allegiances and equal world communities. Cosmopolitanism is broadly manifested in global tragedies where countries offer financial, physical and emotional support to victims of the tragedy.

The idea is, however, misunderstood because of its intrinsic ambiguity. This ambiguity is brought about by its aim of promoting difference and equality among communities whose subject position is a product of history and culture.

For this ideology to work, the world communities must be interdependent to the extent that the two communities cannot exist without each other. This notion is yet to take hold in the world as some countries are more economically advanced than others.


Patriotism refers to the act of loving one’s country, and being ready to support, serve and defend it. This is inspired by a positive change and a zealous concern for its citizens. Philosophically, patriotism is more than just mere love for one’s country. In more elaborate terms, it is a special affection for one’s mother country.

Patriotism is associated with the sense of identification with one’s country and a deep concern for its wellbeing. Often it is marked by the willingness to make sacrifices for the country’s good. The terms ‘love’ and ‘special affection’ can be used interchangeably in defining patriotism.

The description and identification of patriotism by one’s enthusiasm to sacrifice oneself for the country must be innately implied and not brought in as a detached aspect of patriotism. People who exercise patriotism are referred to as patriots and are said to be patriotic.

Despite the existence of patriots, there are critics of patriotism who consider it immoral and stupid for one to place his/her country’s needs before his/her own. Moreover, they consider supporting one’s country at the peril of another as immoral behavior.

Human rights Legitimation

Human rights are the privileges one should enjoy in the world without any interference from external parties. The UN has a list of all the civil liberties a person is entitled to right from one’s birth date. Human rights legitimation, therefore, refers to the process of making a human right legitimate by attaching it to the morals and values of the society.

Human rights have been influential in shaping political intuitions and averting the suffering of humans around the world. However, what constitutes a human right is a controversial topic. Some philosophers suggest that the composition of these rights is the thin moral fiber of the society. This implies that what society considers a basic privilege, for which one is entitled to, should be a human right.

Through a comparison of the human communities around the world, and how they carry out activities, one can form a list of the minimum rights found in most communities and include them as human rights. Some argue that these rights should act as the benchmark for privileges to citizens in well-ordered political institutions.

In the modern world, most human rights legitimation is as a result of treaties and judicial decisions. Such would be like the 13th amendment that banned slavery. The right not to be subject to slavery or servitude arouse from such law or judicial decisions.

Human rights justification

Most of the human rights have been brought about by the occurrence of an issue that resulted to human suffering. These rights are here to rescue and act as a remedy to some of these actions. In short, they are meant to protect human beings against suffering. They have been incorporated into law so as to give the respective government ground of prosecution in case of their violation.

Human rights justification refers to the depiction of human rights as reasonable and necessary. For instance, in case of a contentious debate on whether certain rights should be termed as human rights, those in favor of a positive judgment would have to defend their claims.

This process can be termed as human rights justification. It entails providing evidence that Human rights should be upheld, and the violators should be tried in a court of law.

Human rights justification also encompasses the defense of certain actions, formerly excluded from human rights list, to be included in future. This will have the primary function of combating perpetration of certain evils against human beings in later years.

Humanitarian aid

Humanitarian aid is the assistance given by one country to another. This aid is aimed at reducing human suffering among a disadvantaged population or helping out a country in an area it lacks the necessary expertise. This means that aid can take on several forms. It could be technical aid, product aid or financial aid.

The aid may be given to different sectors of a country such as the government, nonprofit making organization, and private institutions or directly to the people. Aid comes as a remedy to a unique situation. The situation could be long term projects like building of schools or an immediate crisis. The providers of aid also vary from governments, nonprofit making organizations, and multilateral organization to religious groups.

Humanitarian aid implies immediate aid that comes in after a calamity either caused by a natural disaster such as a hurricane or human distractions such as terrorism. It targets to stop continued human suffering in the short term and prevent loss of life.

Global justice

This is a notion propelled by the assumption that the whole world is unfair or unjust. In the entire world, people are seen to exercise great concern for family members and acquaintances but show little concern for outsiders.

Some ancient philosophers liken the Diogenes of Sinope described themselves as citizens of the world. Some of the world’s thinkers have suggested that people owe to others a duty to care and to do good without discriminating from one citizen to another.

The issue of global justice came to greater significance in recent history. This was caused by development of international organizations such as the United Nations. This made political philosophers tackle the issue of justice outside the domestic realm. The main object of global justice is distributive equality.

To elaborate this, the Canadian government allocates $3/per day to farmers to cater for cattle food. In the same world, the World Bank limit for poverty is $2/per day. This poses the question of equality on whether cattle are more important than those living in the third world. By the standards of global justice, caring should also be defined as a moral obligation or an admirable charity.

Immigration and refuges

Immigration refers to the illegal settlement into a foreign country while refugees are people forced into a foreign land by the persecution in their country. There are several important and legitimate questions relating to the issues of immigration.

This border on the rights that accrue to search people and the conduct they should be accorded. The main reason why a nation closes its borders to external access is the prevalent need for the country to preserve it culture. Persons are not welcoming to the idea of diluting their control on progression of their culture.

Another argument to this is sustenance of the economy. There is a belief that the economy can only support a limited number of people. Any influx of people will hurt the economy.

Similarly, there is the issue of distribution of resources. Some states that offer state benefits like Canada must restrict the number of immigrants to avoid straining its resources. Consequently, countries may be firm on immigrants but lenient on the refugees.

Sovereignty and morality

Sovereignty is the quality of exhibiting dominion or superiority over a geographical region. Morality, on the other hand, is the ability to separate what is right or wrong. These are the most practical branches of philosophy in the political realm. They are also the most misused by politicians who justify actions that do not tally with these definitions. Sovereignty has evolved to mean supreme authority over a political territory.

In can also be comprehended by looking at those in authority, its completeness and the inner and outer extents it assumes. The political institution in which sovereignty is personified is the state. Sovereignty has several concepts such as the holder of sovereignty possesses authority.

The authority must be derived from a legitimate source both acknowledged by the holder and the subjects. Such sources are constitution, law, customs and many others. Morality arises as the rightful use the power or authority not to coarse or subject people to suffering. This has been highly misused by politicians.

Lasting peace

Peace means living in harmony. There have been many theories and policies put forth as a means to restore peace in the world. Some practical politicians consider lasting peace as an illusion that can be achieved. The most common way of achieving this has been through treaties. Some of the guidelines are that in a peace treaty among states, no provisions should be made for a future war.

This qualifies the treaty a mere suspension of hostilities. No state should be owned or come under the dominion by another state trough donation or purchase. In addition, the state is not merely the political boundaries but the people who live under that land. A state should not interfere with the constitution of another state for there is no justifiable reason to do so.

It is also vital to note that the state of two men living in harmony is not the natural state of human nature; disagreements are human. However, this does not imply persistent hostility. It is necessary that each one takes it upon himself to maintain peace.

Just war and humanitarian intervention

The doctrines of just war were defined by jurist and theologians with a careful and effective study of violent conflict. This concept of just war takes a dangerous turn when politicians invoke them to dictate diplomacy. The definition given is just a convenient one for them to take the action they want.

Humanitarian intervention is the act of one country attacking another country on grounds that the attacked country has foul violations of human rights. There is no law governing the conditions or circumstances of taking this action. It is thus assumed that the moral, ethics and political factors determine the direction the intervention will take.

The law also plays a major role, but it does not clearly give ground of definite attack such as defending its borders. The underlying reason for the intervention is the threat of using military action as a means to achieve the said objective.

It is also the invasion of a country that has done nothing to contravene the security status of the attacking country. This implies the country has committed no act of aggression towards the attacking country.

The law of peoples

This is a concept that aims to align itself with international law. It formalizes the formation of an original opinion that will safeguard the rights of people and justice. The original opinion is formed by a representative elected by the people to an institution. This institution will form laws that will govern the people of that political territory. There are principles under which this are made.

These include an organized government, independent and free people, whose freedom and independence is upheld.

For instance, people have right of self-defense but not right of war; people are to obey the obligation of non-intervention; people are to respect human rights; people are to honor contracts and undertakings; people have an obligation to offer assistance to others who live under suppressive conditions that infringe on their rights.

In short, these are guidelines that dictate how people should live in a society. They are aimed at developing and supporting peaceful coexistence among different individuals.

Tolerance, pluralism and multi- culturalism

As the world evolves day by day, the concept of political borders becomes less defined and less important. The world is slowly transforming into a global village with increased movements and interactions. Different people in the world come from different places with different beliefs and cultural systems shaped by history and society. This brings the issue of tolerance.

Tolerance is defined as an objective and sane consideration of the other person’s point of view. For instance, foreigners could have different beliefs from those of the local community of a country. Pluralism is a direct descendant to this trend of intense cultural interaction. It implies diversity of views as would result from people of different cultures interacting.

On the other hand, Multi-culturalism is a way of responding to diverse cultural and religious beliefs. Multi-culturalism has brought the issue of group differentiated rights.

This is the exemption from a certain law due to religious or cultural affiliation. These interactions must be adequately monitored to maintain peace in the growing society. They pose a potential conflict area with a sharp reaction from natives over the “invasion” of their society by the foreigners.

Read more