Abstract
This article attempts to respond to the major critical themes in the commentaries by Jones, Hibbert and Lecce on the book Cosmopolitan Regard. The book's ‘statist’ assumptions are acknowledged, and defended in light of the project that is undertaken. Its use of an un-sociological notion of legitimacy (in contrast to ‘justification’) is explained. Its argument is characterized as one that seeks to constrain agency rather than to prescribe distributive outcomes of a strongly egalitarian kind. Finally, the argument's dependence on empirical assumptions is recognized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appiah
K. A.
2010 . The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen . New York : Norton .
2.
Beck
U.
1999 . World Risk Society . Cambridge : Polity Press .
3.
Caney
S.
2005 . Justice Beyond Borders . Oxford : Oxford University Press .
4.
Horton
J.
2006 . ‘In Defence of Associative Political Obligations: Part One’ , Political Studies
54 (4 ): 427 –43 .
5.
Miller
D.
1999 . ‘Bounded Citizenship’ , in
Hutchings
K.
Dannreuther
R.
(eds), Cosmopolitan Citizenship . Houndmills : Macmillan
6.
Nagel
T.
2005 . ‘The Problem of Global Justice’ , Philosophy and Public Affairs
33 (2 ): 113 –47 .
7.
Pogge
T.
2002 . World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms . Cambridge : Polity Press .
8.
Scheffler
S.
2001 . Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought . Oxford : Oxford University Press .
9.
Simmons
A. J.
2001 . Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
10.
Vernon
R.
2011 . ‘Foreseeably Unforeseeable Risk’ , in
Mica
A.
(eds), Sociology and the Unintended . Frankfurt and New York : Peter Lang .
11.
Ypi
L. L.
2008 . ‘Statist Cosmopolitanism’ , Journal of Political Philosophy
16 (1 ): 48 –71 .