Nussbaum argument for and against both cosmopolitanism and patriotism are grounded on a moral basis that either ascribes humanity to lack of moral direction or criticizes humanity for a disenchantment from moral obligation. The problem, thus, is rooted in trying to weigh which of the two arguments is more effective in the modern education system, in the sense that it promotes a more comprehensive and effective system of promoting a global cohesiveness and moral uprightness. The importance and direction of both Nussbaum (1994 and 2008) arguments are that they choose to address a global moral question rather than individual virtues that may derive their importance elsewhere. This allows either arguments to have a connection that can be used to address Nussbaum incongruity by positioning either argument purely based on a moral ground rather than trying to gauge which of the two arguments is better placed. In doing this, it removes the aspect of comparison and introduces the element of inclusivity in trying to find a sound ground upon which to base our education system.
In Nussbaum (1994), the author argues that cosmopolitanism aspires to promote “what is morally good … to all human beings” as opposed to patriotism that encourages politics of “ethnic, racial and religious differences” as the basis of national identity. However, in Nussbaum (2008), the author sees patriotism as the “foundation” within which particularistic values of love and attachments are molded to advance moral authenticity in a global sense. Both of these two arguments derive their importance in finding the right formula to attaining a moral objective rather than an individualistic and selfish subjection. The purpose of any form of education is to enlighten and empower to an improved status while creating a moral awareness that provides for a more morally upright society. Thus, it can be argued that the subject of these two arguments lies in being able to create a system that promotes a morally upright citizenry, proud of their origin, but yet aware of the moral obligation to people other than their fellow citizens.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The solution to these two arguments lies in choosing to adopt a moral stance in deciding whether patriotism or cosmopolitanism is the best foundation of education within a democracy. Such a stance denies cosmopolitanism the identity of global inclusivity while at the same time it ceases to ascribe patriotism the vices of ethnocentrism and racial division. The combination of these two stances will allow an education system to incorporate the vastness and expansiveness of cosmopolitanism; in choosing to refuse to be defined by race, tribe, politics, or religion. It will also give patriotism the importance of forming a strong foundation that allows the students to appreciate their individual differences as crucial to forming a global audience. As a result, both will advance an agenda that chooses to address the strengths of each concept without necessarily demonizing the other for their weaknesses.
Education has and continues to be a major element in the advancement of global unity and globalization. Its importance has allowed for the continued growth of individual nations through the advancement of trade, which allows governments to form a mutual relationships. In turn, these relationships have allowed for a global acceptance of individual differences in such a way that promotes mutually beneficial interaction such as in tourism or sports. Patriotism has placed a demand on nations to keep on improving to match already developed countries, while cosmopolitanism has hindered selfish and destructive intentions. This has given each nation an equal opportunity to grow and advance one's objective, without necessarily being hostile to each other. Global ethical responsibility has thus been created by enjoining cosmopolitanism to patriotism based on moral uprightness.
References
Nussbaum, M. C. (1994). Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism . Boston Review.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2008). Toward A Globally Sensitive Patriotism. Daedalus , 137 (3): P. 78-93
