Last Thursday, we discussed Kwame Anthony Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers.  The debate we had in class was a little unorganized, but I think we covered some good ideas.  At first, I was a little fuzzy on cosmopolitanism versus cultural relativism, but after reading more of Appiah’s example, I think I have a good grasp on it. 

            I want to discuss Appiah’s chapter 10 “Kindness to Strangers” and the segments “Killing the Mandarin” and “The Shallow Pond.”  In “Killing the Mandarin” Appiah writes, “If we were to apportion our efforts to the strength of our feelings, we would sacrifice a hundred millions to save our little finger (Smith’s inference); and if we would do that (this is Rastignac’s corollary), we would surely sacrifice a single faraway life to gain a great fortune.”  These statements assume is that cosmopolitanism “requires us to feel about everyone in the world what we feel about our literal neighbors” (157).  Appiah goes on to say that the skepticism that many people feel toward cosmopolitanism is understandable because it is difficult to imagine caring about strangers that one isn’t necessarily close to.  Therefore, we need to think critically about our own morals and how we should/would react toward strangers and our global neighbors.  Appiah elaborates more in “The Shallow Pond” about how we should behave toward strangers or how we can at least begin to think about how we should behave.  Appiah quotes philosopher Peter Unger, “’To behave in a way that’s not seriously wrong, a well-off person, like you and me, must contribute to vitally effective groups...most of the money and property she now has, and most of what comes her way for the foreseeable future” (158).    Appiah remarks that Unger uses some of philosopher Peter Singer’s work to further explain his point.  Singer has written that if he saw a child drowning in a pond he would be obligated to rescue him even if it meant his clothes would get dirty.  Appiah calls Singer’s argument the “Singer principle” and he says that it “requires you to prevent bad things from happening if the cost is something less awful”.  He takes issue with the Singer principle because it doesn’t consider the idea that not acting, or not saving the drowning child, could prevent something worse from happening.  Appiah also has a problem with the Singer principle because it requires you to do the most possible to minimize the “amount of badness in the world” and because it doesn’t explain “why we should do so” (161). 

           Appiah revises the Singer principle to, “If you are the person in the best position to prevent something really awful, and it won’t cost you must to do so, do it” (161).  Appiah’s principle doesn’t call for extremes and it doesn’t require that a person sit down and “reduce all values to their contributions to the badness in the world” (161).  His principle, I feel like, relies on and trusts people’s sense of morality.  I like to think that most people do choose to act responsibly and do good in the world, but I also have a little bit of doubt lingering in the back of my head because humans aren’t always rational and don’t always act the way most people would deem correct.