94:4 October 2011
Cosmpolitanism: For and Against 

Advisory Editor: Gillian Brock, The University of Auckland 

According to cosmopolitanism, every person has global stature as the ultimate unit of moral concern and is therefore entitled to equal respect and consideration no matter what her citizenship status or other affiliations happen to be. This issue of The Monist is intended as a forum for debates about the pros and cons of cosmopolitanism. It will address questions such as: What does cosmopolitanism require by way of obligations of justice to all? What kinds of reforms to our global and local institutions do cosmopolitan concerns require? Are these requirements feasible? In addition to our obligations to everyone, do we have further, more demanding, obligations to compatriots or to family members? Do non-cosmopolitan theories provide a better account of our obligations and allow us a more useful framework for mediating the interests of compatriots and non-compatriots?

Table of Contents:

Gillian Brock
Cosmopolitanism Versus Non-Cosmopolitanism: The State of Play
 
Richard W. Miller
Rawls and Global Justice: A Dispute over a Legacy
 
Kok-Chor Tan
Two Conceptions of Liberal Global Toleration
 
Simon Caney
Humanity, Associations, and Global Justice: In defence of humanity-centered cosmopolitan egalitarianism
 
Darrel Moellendorf
Cosmopolitanism and Compatriot Duties
 
Michael Blake
Coercion, Global Justice, and Political Association
 
Andrea Sangiovanni
Global Justice and the Moral Arbitrariness of Birth
 
Pablo Gilabert
Cosmopolitan Overflow
 
Rekha Nath
Equal Standing in the Global Community
 
Margaret Moore and Patti Lenard
Rooted cosmopolitanism and special duties