Perm – national solidarities are compatible with global ones

How does the concept of protecting the vulnerable at home help motivate cosmopolitan duties? I propose an argument from analogy, namely that between the socio-economically weakest members of society and the globally worst off. Members of both groups share some fundamental characteristics beyond the obvious one of their socio-economic weakness: Neither group has much bargaining leverage in the context of public policy deliberations — little on the national and even less on the global level. And second, members of both groups are also most in need of solidary actions on the part of the better off — they both share, I would argue, a basic vulnerability to the actions of others. If we accept the argument that concern for vulnerability is at the basis of anti-poverty measures in the welfare state, then it is not clear why these duties should end at the watershed of the nation. Note that this is not to say that a theory of global justice based on the idea of cosmopolitan solidarity would be open to the standard criticism by social liberals that it would not allow for specific duties arising from sharing in the institutions of the nation-state — what we can refer to as associative duties. I accept that the institutional set-up of the nation-state may facilitate the implementation and carrying out of duties of justice. Moreover, it seems uncontroversial that those with whom we share in the institutional make-up of the nation-state will be most immediately vulnerable to our actions and that this vulnerability may warrant specific duties that are based on our political association. To accept associative duties genuine to the national community, however, is not tantamount to calling into question the shared motivational basis of solidary actions at home and abroad. It is not to say that there is something special in our attachment to our fellow nationals that makes us understand their vulnerability and their needs better than our understanding of the needs of distant others. Neither is it the same as to say that there is indeed a conceptual difference between motivations for solidarity at home and solidarity abroad. The simple point I wish to make here is that the motivation to address vulnerability is at the basis of solidary actions everywhere. What remains to be worked out are the institutional details that would allow for the implementation of cosmopolitan solidarity along the lines of the social welfare state at home.