sceptical (and never enthusiastic), his treatment of non-European societies was quite tolerant and non-judgmental. The often arrogant and condescending tone of numerous nineteenth-century historians is missing. Practices and institutions of earlier forms of society are usually depicted as reasonable. Smith implicitly denies that Europeans are qualified to export their type of society to other continents; he warns that the ‘man of system’ is bound to neglect contexts, ‘interests’ and ‘prejudices’ when attempting to realize his ideal plan.34 Smith’s culturally sensitive judgements are rooted in his moral theory, which aims at what Kant would later call ‘enlarged thinking’ or erweiterte Denkungsart: we should see ourselves from the perspective of others, should reflect upon the cultural and social contexts of our judgements, should step beyond the narrow confines of our own group, should try to broaden the circle of comparison. Smith arrives at a delicate balance between a thin version of moral universalism (the traditional, but modified natural law element) and a contextual theory of moral judgements (the new element of history). Smith does not upset this balance in favour of fully fledged moral relativism, similar to Pufendorf, Wolff or Kant (see Chapters 2 and 4). The outcome is a ‘posture of humility in the evaluation of unfamiliar practices’ of non-Europeans, even if Smith sometimes does not refrain from criticism.35 These practices are usually understood as possibly reasonable responses to different contexts and circumstances.
Smith’s cosmopolitanism combines patriotism with indirect, long-term economic as well as natural law (or human rights) cosmopolitanism. Smith’s criticism of colonialism corresponds with these three elements: colonies are detrimental for the metropolitan state (they may lead to war, for instance); they contradict economic prudence because they are simply too expensive; they lead to destruction, oppression, abuse and arbitrary rule, as the case of the East India Company illustrates.36 As in Bentham (see below), there is a delicate balance between economic (or utilitarian) and moral arguments.
Born in England, Thomas Paine (1737–1809) pursued several occupations and finally emigrated to the American colonies in 1774, with a letter of introduction and recommendation by Benjamin Franklin in his pocket. His first major work and an immediate best-seller, Common Sense (1776), helped inspire the Declaration of Independence. It has been said that his work leaves us
with all the features of cosmopolitan thinking in international relations: Faith in reason and progress, the evils of authoritarian regimes, the democratic peace, the peaceful effect of trade, nonprovocative defense policies, open diplomacy, obsolescence of conquest, the universal respect for human rights, and the democratic propensity to engage in messianic interventionism.37
This generous use of the label ‘cosmopolitan thinking’ must be rejected: ‘cosmopolitan’ should not be mixed with ‘liberal’ or ‘liberal internationalist’. In the first place, Paine is a liberal thinker who criticizes monarchies, argues for republican and democratic principles of government, and defends the American and French revolutions. He also develops an early version of the democratic peace proposition. However, these are liberal, not cosmopolitan convictions or theories.
As a cosmopolitan, Paine endorses commercial as well as moral or human rights cosmopolitanism. His most succinct statement on commerce is in the second part of The Rights of Man (1792): ‘I have been an advocate for commerce, because I am a friend of its effects. It is a pacific system, operating to unite mankind by rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other.’ This belief is backed up by the ancient ‘doctrine of universal economy’ (Jacob Viner), endorsed in the fourth century by Libanius. The elements of this doctrine are the moral cosmopolitan belief in a universal commonwealth, the conviction that the exchange of goods is beneficial in a world where resources are distributed unequally, and finally the religious and teleological faith that God or Nature arranged all this to promote peaceful cooperation and social relationships. This doctrine had been a standard argument of cosmopolitan thinkers before Paine such as Montesquieu and representatives of the Scottish Enlightenment.38
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
