Please post five observations and/or questions from your reading (Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism) in the comments field below. This is due, below, by Tuesday, 10/9/2012 at 5:30pm.
CLASS-NOTES.-Baruch-2150-Fall-2012112
Appiah Questions + Class Notes (10.4.2012)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
- Appiah was born in England and raised in Ghana which makes him half English and half African. Maybe because of this he is intrigued by the idea of global citizens and the concept of identity.
- When Appiah says ” but wherever we live, we are connected, we are connected to Ghana and England, our family roots…” I feel like he produces some irony because he stated that he will always be connected to those countries which can be reason for why people take on certain religions, societies, and identities.
- We can associate Appiah with Utilitarianism because the idea of cosmopolitanism can serve as the golden rule that once its met can remedy major conflicts and national rivalries.
- Why haven’t there been any strides to mandate a constitution that is based on cosmopolitanism, since it is such a unifying concept?
- Appiah can effectively persuade the reader because his argumentative approach involves examples from illustrations, historical proofs, and his own personal experiences to get his point across.
Appiah starts out by saying that some values should be universal. While I do agree with this thought I think that its extremely hard to do. All over the world, we have different people, different communities, different cultures, different traditions, different religions etc.. Because of all these differences it would be hard to get everyone to agree on even just one value. What I might consider moral many others around the world will consider immoral. It depends on ones environment, morality and many other factors. Appiah can relate to this because of his mixed background. Im sure that both of his ethnic backgrounds have different customs and practices.
pg 21. Appiah touches upon the idea that vaules could in fact be reflecting our desires. I found this interesting and I realized that this is probably true. Even in Plato’s Republic the idea that individuals act according to self interest is argued. Deep down inside as human beings most of our decisions are made based upon what would benefit our self the most. We avoid pain and punishment, things that are unpleasant to us. We try to succeed in benefitting and rewarding ourselves.
Duhem’s Discovery pg39. This theory that when an experiment is done a scientist will not want to agree with the evidence that is against their own experiment. Something like this theory makes great sense for many reasons. Whether it be conscious or unconscious, many of us do not like to admit defeat and many of us do not like to be proven wrong. This is also one of the many reasons that there are many issues around the world. Instead of coming together and compromising, very often there is miscommunication and disagreement.
Decisions, Decisions from 166. Should we feel guilty about spending money and resources while we could be using that to help those that are less fortunate? You often hear the saying “one person can make a difference”. It can start from one person setting an example and it can expand. A movement can start to help individuals that are less fortunate, BUT as Appiah said while you or I spend this money on a ticket other people are spending money as well. There are many people who donate money or try to help out by reaching out to organizations but how can we know if a difference is really being made? and would it make us feel better about spending and/or using the resources that we work for?
pg 172. Do politicians of rich countries really respond to the needs of those who elect them? I think majority of the voters are probably people who could be better off and participate in the elections because they want change.
Five Questions/Comments from Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism
1. Pg.240
In a recent, eloquent defense of cosmopolitanism, Martha Nussbaum writes:
We should recognize humanity whenever it occurs, and give its fundamental ingredients, reason and moral capacity, our first allegiance and respect….
One should always behave so as to treat with equal respect the dignity of reason and moral choice in every human being.
2. Pg.241
A citizen of the world can make the world better by making some local place better, even though that place need not be the place of her literal or original citizenship.
3. Pg. 258
Cosmopolitanism imagines a world in which people and novels and music and films and philosophies travel between places where they are understood differently, because people are different and welcome to their difference.
4. Pg. 264
And yet the impressive thing about human rights, it seems to me, is how effectively they have functioned despite all their manifest limitations and obscurities.
5. Pg. 268
Cosmopolitans do not ask other people to maintain the diversity of the species at the price of their individual autonomy.
• P.27- “Necessary evil, a bad thing done in the service of a greater good.”
However, who really knows or can decide what a greater good is?
• P.39- “What you see depends on what you believe.”
I think it is a major problem around the world, because people are transferring information with their own point of view, which mean their own believe, where it is not the actual truth.
• P.46- “Knowing what the word means doesn’t tell you much about what it applies to.”
I feel, as a foreigner in this country, that in a broader sense it is a big issue for any foreigner in a country, society or culture. You can learn the language pretty fast but it takes a long time to really know its application.
• P.67- “So you might conclude that cross-cultural conversations about values are bound to end in disagreement.”
It happened to me many times.
• P.164- “Our obligation is not to carry the whole burden alone. Each of us should do our fair share.”
Fair share? It is very subjective.
1. Science Fiction. Aliens. Star Trek. While I am reading Appiah’s ideas on cosmopolitanism I can’t help but think of Star Trek, The Next Generation. This Science Fiction setting is for the most part cosmopolitan. There are countries, states, and cities but there is one human race. There is no longer a distinction among the humans in the Federation Of Planets in regard to race or religion but that unity was brought about through scientific discovery and the discovery of other alien races. Even the idea of “first contact” which on the show was contingent on the newly found alien races values and ability to accept diversity.
2. ” But desires can’t be right or wrong…” This comment on desire sounds like something most closed minds should hear. Desire is a relative idea and barring any harm to others, is not something that can or should be regulated. Respecting this in others seems to be one of Appiah’s finer points.
3. Appiah attributes stories as a big part of setting the language of values that can be found in every culture. He states that a story carries a certain value that wants to be passed on and I find this to be a very powerful statement. I personally love stories in many ways and I am often interested in others stories. In being a writer of fiction I always have a value or moral I want to tell. I find when I can’t understand something or someone a personal story always helps. We are all walking and talking stories waiting to happen.
4. Agreeing to disagree appears to be one of Appiah’s greater ideas as well. Understanding someone’s point of view is more important than changing their minds.
5. I appreciated that Appiah put witchcraft and religious belief in the same category. The idea that these beliefs can only be true to the person is one that should be shared with everyone. There would be more of an understanding that these beliefs should not be pressed upon anyone else and that we should agree to disagree on matters that only pertain to yourself.
“Kwame Appiah on Desires” page 19, Has Kwame considered that people with faith in God, would believe that what they desire in the world are only worldly desires. As the desires of their heart they are not aware of and only God can provide them with it through obedience.
“Kwame Appiah on Positives view on religion” Page 39, It would be quite unreasonable and contradictory for the positivist to compare religion to modern scientific views, for obvious reasons.
“Kwame Appiah on Moral Disagreement” Page 65, punishing someone for doing something they did not no was wrong, makes sense. Their ignorance still had consequences, and someone has to be held responsible.
“Kwame Escape from Postivism” Page 15, To understand all is to forgive all, is a way of excusing wrongdoings. Can anthropologist really apply this to honor killings? or bride burning? Just because it is a culture doesn’t make it right or acceptable.
“Kwame Facts on the ground” Page 38-40, A reason for the undermining and dismissal of witchcraft in this example by the westerners, is it only considered by the people who are science believers?
1. In the beginning, Appiah starts of by saying that “some” values should be universal.—To some degree I agree with that thought but I do believe that it would be nearly impossible for the universe to believe in the same values. Different culture around the world have their own upbringing and own morals, the different backgrounds will always mean a different way of thinking and believing.
2. Appiah talks about the idea that values could be in fact be reflecting our desires.—What we believe in will definitely affect what we want or desire. If you live in a society where money does not affect your social class than you wouldn’t desire the money if social class doesn’t mean anything to you.
3. On Page 17, Quote “A lingering suspicion that a lot of what we take to be right and wrong is simply a matter of local custom has hardened, in the modern age…” – What we believe to be right or wrong will always depend on our culture and customs. Even growing up as an Asian American, there were always a lot of different matters between the two cultures and what one considers to be right while the other considers it to be a taboo.
4. On Page 27, there’s a quote that caught my attention “Necessary evil, a bad thing done in the service of greater good” – who is to judge that what “great good” means? Around the world every culture will have there own definition of “great good”. Some believe in the Death Penalty and some will always go against it.
5. Duhem’s Thoery—I didn’t quite understand it…. So it basically means humans will not like to admit that we are wrong even if the evidence is in front of us?? I don’t think people are that ignorant to not see the truth even if the evidence are right there in front of them but it’s the PRIDE that takes over.
-The concept of naturalistic fallacy, which Appiah introduces on page 17 is an intriguing topic of discussion because many people have different ideas of naturalistic fallacy. What one person’s morals may hold to be true and dear may be ridiculed by another person who naturally believes in their mind that it is wrong. However, it is indisputable that people are always moving from what is to what ought to be because they are always trying to better themselves.
-The story of the medical missionary in a remote place watching in horror as babies get sick from untreated water fascinates me in the sense that sometimes people have such strong faiths, nothing breaks it and that one must go along with it in order to get cooperation. It was intricately well thought out to tell the uneducated people that spirits in the water would go away if you boil it than explaining to them about germs and the process they cause in their systems.
-On page 63 to page 65, there is an interesting discussion about the sharing of values yet, although we share the same values as another person, it won’t mean that we will always agree to what they think. In fact, even though we may share the same values as another person, the degrees to which we believe in such values may be completely different. For example, Confucius believed in parental obedience and so do Americans, yet most Americans will not allow their parents stand in the way of their love even if their parents disapprove of their spouse.
-Appiah states that while we are different from each other, we can still learn to accept one another. He thinks that just because we don’t approve of each other’s customs does not mean we cannot respect each other because the fundamental and underlying principle that supersedes all of this, which is the fact that we each hold cultural values and understand that. So if I chose to not approve of the things one culture practices, it still does not mean I won’t have respect for them as human beings.
-Unger’s argument that not intervening to save someone because we have something else worth doing is morally equivalent to killing him is a fascinating topic to ponder on because if that was true, Appiah argues, wouldn’t everyone be liquidating their assets and emptying their accounts to save lives if their morals were up to par? So what if you spend a hundred dollars to save thirty starving children? What about the next thirty starving children? What about that bag that you spent a thousand dollars on? All this is reasonable but then would your own personal life be of any value anymore if all you did was send money to starving children? Won’t you become one of these people, troubled and in need of help? Won’t this become a chain of events?
(Page 27) “Necessary evil, a bad thing done in the service of greater good”
The “greater good” will have different meanings across the globe. It depends on one’s culture, beliefs, and ideas.
(Page 59) “Cosmopolitans . . . regard all the peoples of the Earth as so many branches of a single family, and universe as a state, of which they, with innumerable other rational beings, are citizens, promoting together under the general laws of nature the perfection of the whole, while each in his own fashion is busy about his own well being.”
I like this quote, because Appiah is saying that we are part of the entire world and not restricted to others ideas or beliefs.
(Page 61-62) “I never thought to wonder, as a child, why these people traveled so far to live and work in my hometown; still, I was glad they did.”
Appiah liked the fact that people from around the world worked in his hometown and that learning and interacting with other cultures and lifestyles is valuable and a great experience.
(Page 67 ) “Or take the practice of foot-binding in China, which persisted for a thousand years — was largely eradicated within a generation. The anti-foot-binding campaign, in the 1910′s and 1920′s, did circulate facts about the disadvantages of bound feet, but those couldn’t have come as news to most people. Perhaps more effective was the campaign’s emphasis that no other country went in for the practice; in the world at large, then, China was “losing face” because of it.”
To put practice first means to put your beliefs before others beliefs. When it comes to more abhorrent practices like foot binding in China, there will always be many opinions over its necessity and the effects it has on girls.
(Page 67) “…homosexual acts were illegal, lesbian and gay couples are increasingly being recognized by their families, by society, and by the law.”
Appiah is saying that if society does not want to accept homosexuality being legalized, society should at minimum be respectful of homosexual perspective and wants.
Being half African, and half English, Kwame’s two different identities viewed by the society possibly led him to philosophical ideal discovered by Diogenes, Cosmopolitan, where people are the citizens of the Universe. This concept is simple, yet very difficult to be accepted by the people around the globe. People, depending where they came from, have different cultures, norms, and etc . that give people the specific identity. It is rarely a case for a person to be view one another as same as oneself, a citizen of the universe.
When Kwame talks about ‘Positivism,’ he mentions the ‘evil’ and ‘good’ on page 27. Human beings are different because of sense morality; common sense of what is right and wrong. However, this isn’t true for all cases. Because everyone’s belief is different from one another, who is to say someone’s good is also other’s good? Different culture or norm may lead that particular group of people to believe something is to be the truth or good, despite it is viewed negatively from the others.
The quote, “What you see depends on what you believe,’ is very contradictory, and is, in fact, one of the most problematic clichés that has been around since the existence of human beings. Having sense of selfishness in nature, human beings judge only by what they see, thus blinded from the truth hidden from their ignorance
Pg. 41
Duhem’s Discovery
“If what it’s reasonable to believe depends on what you believe already, however, then you can’t check the reasonableness of all your beliefs. You respond to new evidence in the light of what you already believe, and that gives you new beliefs. Were the original beliefs reasonable?”
Pg. 47
“The most fundamental level of disagreement occurs when one party to a discussion invokes a concept that the other simply doesn’t have. This is the kind of disagreement where the struggle is not to agree but JUST TO UNDERSTAND.”
Pg. 60
“Because that language is open-textured and essentially contestable, even people who share a moral vocabulary have plenty to fight about”
Pg. 163
Basic Needs
“First, the primary mechanism for ensuring these entitlements (basic needs) remains the nation-state. There are a few political cosmopolitans who say they want a world government.”
Pg. 171
“When you spend your dollars – or euros or pounds – isn’t it worth also spending a moment or two to ask whether they are being spent intelligently? However much you give, doesn’t it matter that none of it is wasted? Part of the trouble with Peter Unger’s focus on those staring children is that it blocks thought about the complexity of the problems facing the global poor.”
If there is practice of one’s culture there can never be true cosmopolitanism. When human babies first come into the world their first imprint of information is the culture that surrounds them for example, the culture of the family raising the baby. That culture will never the child’s brain as it is the foundation of their identity. As the child grows older and has been thrown into an world where there is so much diversity and so much cultural assimilation, the person will fall back into the one aspect of life that is unique to only them. The person then will form his own ideas, ideas of what makes them happy or sad and only people of the same culture will understand their ideas.
(1)The Escape from Positivism page 16,
“One can see by this what custom can do, and Pindar, in my opinion, was right when he called it “king of all,”
What a powerful statement. If there is one thing that people will always fall back on and follow blindly it will be the ways of their culture and customs.
(2) Duhem’s Discovery
“Hanson thought it was literally impossible-to present data in language that isn’t infused with theoretical ideas”
Is not a good thing to always think of theories when evaluating data? If there is always new theories there are more chances of one of them being accepted?
(3) Moral Disagreement, page 46
” some terms- “good”,”ought”-are, as philosophers often put it, rather thin.”
What exactly is good? As Appiah talked about earlier in the writing, good differs from culture to culture. King Darius once asked a tribe of cannibalistic Indians to burn the bodies they have collected rather than to eat them and they replied by not eating what they killed it will be gone to waste and that would not be a “good” thing.
(4) The Shallow Pond, page 158
” Unger’s paradox is a special problem for cosmopolitans”
There are too many people suffering in the world for one person to fix. “…Tossing the envelope in the trash is, in a similar way, immoral.”
(5) Decisions, Decisions, page 166
” Death isn’t the only thing that matters. What matters is decent lives.”
But what determines a decent life? A good supply of food, a place to sleep, and what else? To each person the meaning of decent life is different to them. Maybe the suffering child wants more than a decent life, maybe he wants to live a lavish life.
* “What’s an alternative to the positivist picture of value? Value guides our act, our thoughts, and our feelings.”
* “You don’t need to leave home to have disagreements about questions of value.”
*”When you spend your dollars- or euros or pounds- isn’t it worth also spending a moment or two to ask whether they are being spent intelligently?”
*”Politicians the worlds richest countries naturally respond most to the needs of those who elected them. But they should be responding to their citizens aspiration as well.”
* ” When people get sick for unaccountable reasons in Manhattan, there is much talk of viruses and bacteria. Since doctors do nor claim to be able to do much about most viruses they do not put much effort into identifying them.”
Is the essence of cosmopolitan a sort of belief or a sort of value? What moral base that drive cosmopolitan to care for every human being?
The quote “to understand all is to forgive all”. what is to forgive within this context, for anthropologists, for general population? ( I would use the term acceptance instead forgive becuase forgive has the meaning of not to care)
If belief is based on facts, and desire is formed by having beliefs. Then the why does he say ” reality can’t force us to desire anything?” I think belief and deisre are endless spiral, and fact is the start of that spiral. Science might able to explain why you desire becuase science is the study of fact. Then science must be able to explain desire itself as well.
Appiah say “cosmopolitanism is about intelligence and curiosity as well as engagement”
I found “killing the mandarin is funy example becuase I am a mandarin, when Appiah explain the principle “prevent something bad from happening at the cost of something less bad, you ought to do it” and ” if you are the person in the best position to prevent something really awful, and it won’t cost you much to do so, do it.” These both require measurement to tell the “less bad” and “cost you much”. They all have the same problem.
1. On page 19, Appiah makes a distinction between beliefs and desire, stating that desires are aimed at changing the world and are not a reflection of how the world is. It could be argued that envy is a form of desire, and while some may wish the world was different so that that they can have what others have, some simply work with what the world is to reach that desire for themselves.
2. On page 38, the text suggests that believing in viruses is not unlike believing in witchcraft, suggesting that people just yield to the belief because science says so. However, the credit of the scientific process is proven, and studies regarding the existence of viruses is verifiable, and have been tested by others. In addition, individuals are free to conduct their own tests to confirm or find flaws in the findings. The same can’t be said of witchcraft. Though even if some witchcraft practices prove to be true, they would then be regarded as science.
3. “First you collect the data; then you see what theories it supports.” Scientific process is one that seeks to disprove theories so as to reach truth.
4. On the subject of “Moral Disagreement” and the Golden Rule, one might wonder about the actual relevance of the rule given that individual belief systems have so much variance. We can only put ourselves in someone else’s shoes from the standpoint of our own experience and belief system.
5. The idea that politicians should be responding to societies aspirations begs the question as to how we view politicians. In this country, government was founded on the principle that the sole purpose of government is to protect the rights and freedoms of the governed. That being said, should politicians be viewed as the leaders to help support societal aspirations, or should we hold ourselves accountable?
In the introduction Kwamae-Appiah asked when do morals and manners clash? I was wondering if they ever do clash. I’m thinking that they should always run parallel to each other even if they keep evolving.
On pg 16 regarding the taboo of cannibalism, the perspective from the Amazon chief on the subject is quite interesting. The chief is baffled that Europeans view cannibalism as an abomination. He comments that the bad thing is not being eaten, but death itself. Hmmmm. I’m thinking he could be onto something.
“We appeal to values when we are trying to get things done together” Pg 28. I wish he could expound on this.
Kwame-Appiah said on Pg 31 that we would be living our lives effectively from our different perspectives and without a shared world what is there to discuss? Can you imagine a world where everybody shared the same values and ideals and no one disagreed with anyone’s perspective on the issues of life?
“Once you have the idea of witchcraft, there will be plenty of occasions when the general theory will seem to be confirmed.” (P36) This is also true of people who believe in superstition, or karma or even doing good unto others. Once you subscribe to a particular belief most likely there will be times when something happens that confirms that belief.
Page 17. “A lingering suspicion that ….talk of objective moral “truths” is just a conceptual error.”
What is meaning that talk of talk of objective moral “truths” is just a conceptual error?
Page 25. “Values guide our act, our thoughts, and our feelings. These are our responses to values.”
The people interact with a large number of people on a daily basis. When people get a job, they must appeal to their value. If want to get a love, must show unique value. Value guides act, thought, expression, and reflex in society.
Page 44. People constantly argue each other. Thousands and thousands of kind of arguing have been handed down by countless generations. There is no end of argument.
Page 60. “Language is open-textured and essentially contestable, even people who share a moral vocabulary have plenty to fight about.”
Language shares feeling and interconnected each other. I agree with language is essential to interact moral conversation.
Page 169. “In recent years, social scientists have increasingly recognized that a crucial constraint on development is weak governance and poor institution.”
Weak government and poor institution cause social irregularities. Eventually, a nation’s economic and social stability are going down.
Arthur Lewis
Revised Version
Five Questions/Comments from Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism
1. Pg. 42
“Who knows where we would be with the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa if we did not have modern scientific tools: tests for the virus, drugs for treatment, the understanding that predicts that condoms will prevent transmission of the disease.”
In some countries, men believe that having sex with virgins will cure them of the AIDs virus.
2. Pg. 42
“The advance of reason in the industrialized world is not the product of greater individual powers of reasoning. It is the result of the fact that we have developed institutions that can allow ordinary human beings to develop, test, and refine their ideas.”
Without these institutions, we would be dependent on ancient customs and beliefs handed down from our ancestors.
3. Pg. 45
“You don’t have to leave home to have disagreements about questions of value.”
4. Pg. 157
“Cosmopolitanism as an ethical commitment strains to extend our concrete realities to include some distant and generalized ’others’ who, we are told, are our global neighbours.”
For example, Bill Gates would be considered a cosmopolitan for caring for and using his wealth to assist children in Africa and other countries.
5. Pg. 168
“Cosmopolitanism is about intelligence and curiosity as well as engagement. “
- A citizen of the world can make the world better by making some local place better, even though that place need not be the place of her literal or original citizenship.
- “The most fundamental level of disagreement occurs when one party to a discussion invokes a concept that the other simply doesn’t have. This is the kind of disagreement where the struggle is not to agree but JUST TO UNDERSTAND.”
- “Because that language is open-textured and essentially contestable, even people who share a moral vocabulary have plenty to fight about”
- “Necessary evil, a bad thing done in the service of a greater good.” If the act is being done for good wouldn’t it be a good act?
- “If what it’s reasonable to believe depends on what you believe already, however, then you can’t check the reasonableness of all your beliefs. You respond to new evidence in the light of what you already believe, and that gives you new beliefs. Were the original beliefs reasonable?”
- P. 20 – “The world is the totality of facts.” – “The world can force us to believe in things, because if we don’t they’ll bump into us anyhow, get in our way.” The world is the way it is because of the way we live in it.
-P.46 “To be courageous requires that you do something that strikes us as risky or dangerous, something where you have something to lose.” He gives an example that even opening a door can be courageous, if you had agoraphobia. I think that courage is overcoming a fear, or risking your health or life for the cause you are fighting for.
-P. 60 – The Golden Rule – “What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others.” Or in positive terms, “What you wish done to yourself, do to others.” I like how Appiah adress both of the ‘glass half empty/ half full’ mentalities.
- P. 66 “we’ve identified three kinds of disagreement about values: we can fail to share a vocabulary of evolution; we can give the same vocabulary different interpretations; and we can give the same values different weights.” each of these problems seems more likely to arise if the discussion involves people from different societies. Appiah goes on to claim that people often agree on general principles of behavior, even when the underlying reasons for behaving similarly are not present.
- P. 166 – “All values are measurable in a single thin currency of goodness and badness.” Appiah would agree that although it is true that there are some clearly bad acts, such has having slaves build pyramids and monuments, and some clearly good acts such as saving a mans life, all values cannot fall into only two categories; we must take into account the shades of grey the values may fall under.
Can I simply just say what a relief to find somebody who really understands what they’re talking about on the internet. You certainly understand how to bring an issue to light and make it important. A lot more people should read this and understand this side of the story. I was surprised that you aren’t more popular since you certainly possess the gift.