Global Justice and Nationalism

 The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy writes in brief the philosophical values and traditions regarding global justice, how it is defined by their standards, and how it is played out within other nation states. I will be focusing mainly on section 2.3, which discusses the duties of compatriots versus non-compatriots, and goes on to further understand the differences between the two, such as how state actors and non-state actors view one another and potentially interact. While most have viewed nationalism in a positive light, nationalism goes beyond respect for national sovereignty, this ideology can perpetuate negative attitudes towards other countries and sometimes even make one states citizens seem morally superior than another citizen who is belonging to another state (Gillian, 2015). There is a debate among egalitarian theorists discussing whether or not concerns with equality should be confined to state members or be granted to every individually globally (Gillian, 2015). This is one way nationalistic ideologies creates negative impacts on the relationship with other countries, because it too often only prioritizes the state members in regards to equality, rather than human rights and equality on the global scale. Within the concepts of nationalism, there are three negative outcomes which can and often do outweigh positives nationalism has to offer. One, nationalism creates conflict, and has been the reason why war and conflicts between different actors is initiated. Nationalism can infringe on the rights of others regarding their equality and human given rights, as well as create xenophobic fears of other nations (Effects of Nationalism, 2008). The second and third reasons display the negative effects of nationalism which makes a vast difference on the views of human rights as well as actions in other countries. Gillian incorporates Nussbaum’s views on global justice—which she claims that as nation citizens, we belong to one global community created simply of human beings, and that while the love for one’s country may have a legitimate place in their conceptions of life, it should not be overlooked that we have many other relationships we are in which connects us the the broader world (Nussbaum, 1996). Finally, the author embodies the cosmopolitan views, which is the idea that all human beings are members of the same or single community, which directly correlates back to Nussbaum’s views, where she argues humans are belonging to many different communities as well as one community. Similar to Nussbaum’s views, Tan also offers up a similar argument to hers. He argues that the cosmopolitan principles should govern the global institutional structures which ensure that individuals of states are treated as equals regardless what their nationality, race, gender, or identity is because as humans we belong to one community (Tan, 2004). These reasons listed above indicate the major faults with nationalistic identities as well as how it can create divides between neighboring countries, and the connections between other global actors. While nationalism should not be condemned, it should be critiqued more frequently for its faults, for example, the influence nationalism has on American society has been criticized in the past for its aggressive nationalistic views, especially on immigration and human rights for those who were not born in the United States. 

Citations 

Brock, Gillian. “Global Justice.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 6 Mar. 2015, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-global/.

 

“Effects of Nationalism.” Critical Challenge: Effects of Nationalism, https://www.learnalberta.ca/content/ssoc11/html/effectsofnationalism_cc.html.