Sheyla Benhabib, The Philosophical Foundations of Cosmoplitan Norms en Another

Cosmopolitanism, pp. 13-43

CLASE

1. The Eichmann Trial
2. Cosmopolitan Norms of Justice
3. Cosmopolitanism and Discursive Scope
4. Kants Cosmopolitan Legacy
5. The Rise of International Human Rights Regime
6. The Paradox of Democratic Legitimacy

1. The Eichmann Trial
a. Doubts of Arendt about an international laws
b. Crime vs moral injury
i. Crimes against HUMANITY
c. International law= juridical
d. Menschheit VS Menschlichkeit
e. Kantian solutions?
2. Cosmopolitan Norms of Justice
a. UN declaration of human rights = transitions from international to cosmopolitan
laws
i. International = from pacts among states (trade, commerce, security)
ii. Cosmopolitan = individuals as legal and moral
b. Globalization and empire as cosmopolitan laws
i. THIN = Globalization = economist reductive (right to property, liberty, etc.)
ii. THICK = Empire = Negri and Hardt
1. Imperialism = predatory, extractive
2. Empire = anonymous network of rules to protect capitalism, but
not only economic but infrastructure (technological,
communicative, international, )
c. Thin ad thick = failure
i. Capture the necessary relationship between
1. Cosmopolitan norms
2. Democratic self determination
3. Cosmopolitanism and Discursive Scope
a. Problem with cosmopolitanism
i. NUSSMABUM an enlightened moral perspective love of mankind vs love
of country
ii. WALDRON hybrid , fantasy,
iii. CRITICAL THEORY =
1. Normative philosophy
2. Universalistic norms of discourse
3. Beyond nation states
iv. Benhabib = iii, but reservation over norms of discourse
1. Discursive scope
a. Limited = our daily conversation = nationally recognized
boundaries
b. Cosmopolitan = moral conversation (dar y pedir razones) =
discourse ethics and humanity = UNIVERSAL DISCOURSE =
if human / moral conversator (justificatory conversation)
2. PROBLEM = if moral discourse is open-ended / no ends
a. Local membership = ended
b. vs. universalist membership = open endedness
c. MORAL discourse as universalist delete the border lines
3. Two dilemmas:
a. NOM VS NOC
i. If norms of citizenship / Norms of membership
but not conversely (norms of membership are
bigger)
ii. But NOC affects NOM, by CE (criteria of exclusion)
iii. If NOM are UNIVERSAL cannot be articulated by
CE (per definitionem)
iv. NOM include (not exclude) the salient part of NOC
distinction (citizen-not citizen)
b. Irrelevancy of discursive ethics (premise is = DE is open
endness validation)
i. If membership is NOC / discursive is IRRELEVANT,
since cannot articulate ANY justifiable criteria of
exclusion
ii. If DE permits these practices as morally neutral
contingencies / IRRELEVANT, since not require
further validation
4. How solve the problem:
a. Reductive
i. Communitarians: reduce NOM to NOC
ii. Realist post-modern: delete NOM
b. Non reductive = cosmopolitanism
i. Maintain both:
1. Ethical political
2. Moral-universal
4. Kants Cosmopolitan Legacy
a. Arendt and Japers as Kantians
i. Against legal positivism and natural law
1. Legal positivism = if norm is a legal norm/ any justification in
terms of norms is legal
a. Consequence 1: moral norms are OUT-legal until its
legalization (positivization of norms)
2. Natural law = obsolete
a. Since natural law doctrines subscribe a UNIVERSAL (fixed)
HUMAN NATURE = metaphysics of presence
b. Arendt = human condition = LIFE GIVES (Es gibt del Sein)
to humans
c. Jaspers = human Existenz
ii. Problem :
1. natural law and legal positivism includes HUMANITY
2. But NL and LP are false
3. NO HUMANITY, AND / crime against humanity falls down
iii. Solution : Kant
1. RECHT
a. Recht
b. Vlkerrecht
c. Weltbrgerrecht
i. Hospitalitt as recht = as human
ii. Hospitalitt as philantrophie = social virtue
2. Moral right or legal right?
a. Hospitalitt = right of temporary residence
3. Right of hospitality
a. Between
i. Human rights
ii. Political-civil rights
b. Between
i. We as persons
ii. We as citizens
4. Right to asylum and refuge
a. Moral rights
b. Legal rights = external enforcement
i. If external / external sovereignty (need for
positivization)
c. PROBLEM:
i. Quasi-legally binding space but through
VOLUNTARY commitment (moral)
1. If legal/ external coercive
2. If moral / no coercive
3. How can be possible a legal-moral order?
Without reductions?
4. KANT = this space is ERDKUGEL
5. Westphalian sovereignty
b. Three philosophical puzzles on cosmopolitanism
i. Ontological foundations of cosmopolitanism = not back on pre-kantian
ii. Normativity of these rights = coercive but without antecedent of external
power
iii. Local universal =





5. 5528441086