The Limits of Kant’s Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Practice, and the Crisis in Syria

Abstract

Although Kant defends a cosmopolitan ideal, his philosophy is problematically vague regarding how to achieve it, which lends support to the empty formalism charge. How Kant would respond to the crisis in Syria reveals that judgement plays too central a role, because Kantian principles lead to equally reasonable but opposite conclusions on how to weigh the duty of hospitality to refugees against a state’s duty to its own citizens, the right of prevention towards ISIS against the duty not to harm non-combatants, and the responsibility to protect the people of Syria against the duty of non-interference in its internal affairs.

The patronising Kantianisms of hospitality ethics in International Relations: Towards a politics of imposition

“…For Kant, such individual motivations are illiberal and, thus, irrational, as they are not universalisable in their intent. As explored by Matthew C. Altman (2017) in his review of the applicability of Kant’s principles to contemporary crises of displacement in Syria, prior to fulfilment of Kant’s idealised cosmopolitan federation of states, there is only room for practical judgements that favour individual states’ interests. Accordingly, civil states working towards Right Rule and International Right contribute to the maturation of global society by either stopping or directing the movements of such others in ways that minimise or eliminate their impacts on the liberal conditions of free citizens in free states.…”