Communitarianism vs. Cosmopolitanism Essay -- Politics Political

normative Theories of Politics - Contrasting Cosmopolitan and Communitarian ApproachesWhen looking at normative theories of politics, the briny distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this es evidence the term biotic community sh in all disturb to policy-making communities, or more specifically, asserts. It is important to note that these political communities put on been defined territorially, and not necessarily by culture, although this is taken for granted to an issue by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is disagreeent, and therefore should act therefore with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be living and law and righteous standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone. Furthermore, communities should imbibe no obligations to other political communities or any sort of internationalistic law. Contrastingly, Cosmopolitans say that there should be an overriding frequent moral standard to which all states (or communities) should adhere. If a state is infringing on the honests of the individual or humanity, then preventative is appropriate and just. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics An Introduction to outside(a) traffic p. 173A)Communitarianism says that communities themselves define what rightful conduct is, and therefore should not be have to follow any universal moral code. Morality arises from the culture that makes up the community, and therefore determines what is right for that community, whether it is or not for anyone else. Communitarians say that there cannot be a universal moral standard because where would these standards come from? Who would decide what is right and wrong? However, the argument communitarianism can be turned against it if these communities are nation-states. It is solo the predominant culture that leave alone determine what the moral standards of the community are. Cosmopolitans moot that there should be a universa l moral standard to which both community must(prenominal) abide. They allow for state autonomy, but only to an extent. States must not be able to be completely self-determined and free from moral obligations to the rest of the international community. But this raises significant questions. Can a universal moral standard exist? And how can it apply to all states? tour cosmopolitanism allows for some state autonomy, the moral standard would mean that some ... ...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics An Introduction to International transaction p. 173A)(Chris Brown, The Globalisation of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations p. 480A)(Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A) Cosmopolitanism and communitarianism differ vastly in the way they, as intellectual concepts, deal with international dealings. Cosmopolitanism holds the view that the rights of humanity and the individual should override those of the state (or political community), whereas communitarianism is the opposite. It states that the rights of the community are more important than those of the state. It is because of these fundamental differences that they deal with international relations in significantly different ways. However, both theories have their flaws and it seems that we can have neither a fully cosmopolitan or communitarian world political system.