Week Four

While reading Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Appiah, I saw a connection to the topic of human dignity in our class. One of the points I picked up from the book is that there needs to be a balance between our expectations of the world and our beliefs about it. This moderation of seeing everyone as an individual with the right to their own beliefs while also working within the confines of your own beliefs is essential to cultivating the dignity in another human being. If you are rooted so deeply in your own beliefs without being open to the possibility that someone else can have different, but equally as valid, beliefs, then you are essentially telling the other person that they are in the wrong because of how they see the world, which is detrimental to cultivating their dignity. On the other hand, when you try to take the stance that every view and belief in the world is right, then you run into the problem of conflicting values. Appiah spends a great deal of time explaining the comparisons between these two concepts both in his book and in his section of The Examined Life.


Appiah also referenced Immanuel Kant when he was talking about ethics. Kant was a german philosopher during the Enlightenment who advocated for the enlightenment of all individuals so that each person could be his/her own judge. (Kant's Essay) He believed that every individual could become enlightened and that, once everyone was a part of an enlightened society, there would be no need for police. Everyone would get along without issues across the world. Unfortunately, the world is not an enlightened place in the sense Kant was speaking of. So, his utopian and idealistic views cannot really be applied. I think this gets to the point that Appiah is trying to make: The world is full of beliefs and values that clash with one another. Not all people are interested in becoming enlightened and getting along with one another. When a culture believes something is right or wrong, it is very difficult for them to look past that in order to step in someone else's shoes who they consider to be in the wrong. Here is a brief synopsis of Kant's philosophy:

Another point that Appiah brings up is that we are increasingly connected (like it or not) to a wider world than our ancestors ever had to experience. We are interacting with people across the globe that we may never see just to buy a pair of pants or a jacket. Our world has gotten smaller, and so we have had to adapt in order to deal with all the new connections to other people. When there is too much focus on "we think this, and they think that," then wars like World War II occur. I think that the best solution to the dilema Appiah brings up is tolerance within reason. It is possible to respect the beliefs of others throughout the world by taking a step back from the sensitive issues and looking at if it truly causes harm to the basic human rights of others or not. If it causes no harm, then there should be no reason to avoid tolerance.