武士は食わねど、ボロを着てても・・・？

Martha Nussbaum Thinks the So-Called Retreat of Liberalism Is an Academic Fad via @thenation https://t.co/RoHsQM7EFh　ヌスバウムのコスモポリタニズム批判

— mozu (@mozumozumozu) 2020年1月22日

Cosmopolitanism—the idea that we are, first and foremost, citizens of the world rather than of a particular nation or region—is predicated on a universal respect for human dignity and a demand for justice regardless of race, sex, or creed. Nussbaum argues, however, that to arrive at this conception of human dignity, the cosmopolitans of earlier ages came to exclude worldly success or material wealth from their notions of the dignified life. “In order to treat people as having a dignity that life’s accidents cannot erode,” Nussbaum explains, the founders of cosmopolitanism “[scoffed] at money, rank, and power, saying that they are unnecessary for human flourishing. The dignity of moral capacity is complete in itself.”

Nussbaum offers instead her “capabilities approach”—“a template for constitution-making” that secures citizens the freedoms and opportunities necessary for human flourishing—as a way of providing political solutions to these problems. She thus sees the nation-state as offering the most feasible means for ending the bifurcation between dignity and material aid by guaranteeing some reasonable level of economic and social rights.

Finally, cosmopolitanism is a form of humanist rationalism. Our duties are to other humans only, and their ground is the claim that all humans partake in rationality. I reject both the rationalism and the humanism found in this tradition. Even within our species, we should treat as full equals people with severe cognitive disabilities that rationalism does not include. But we also have stringent duties to other animals and the world of nature. I’ll go further: All forms of rationalist humanism typically cast aspersions on our animality and teach us to have disdain and disgust for ourselves insofar as we are animals. This is a pernicious idea that has done untold damage.

My view, however, is a partial political doctrine. Like Rawls’s, it thus respects what he called “political liberalism.” It has a big place for nations to choose their own versions of the capabilities. and nothing is implemented from without, only from within. It is not based on rationalism, and in Frontiers of Justice I show how it does justice to the full equality of people with both physical and cognitive disabilities. Finally, it makes room for nonhuman animals and the world of nature, as I say in Frontiers but will develop more fully in a book currently in progress.

この記事だけだと全容はわかりにくいが、我々は、地域の人間である前に世界市民なんだ、というコスモポリタニズムにまるきり反対しているわけではなく、コスモポリタニズムが、 経済的な必要性を無視して人間の威厳云々を言うことに反対しているみたいだね。

「武士は食わねど高楊枝、ボロを着てても心は錦」とやっていてもそれでは人間の尊厳はたもたれず、まずは、経済的必要性を満たしてやらないと人間的な威厳は保てない。で、国家はそうした必要性をみたす重要な役割を果たしている。

そしてコスモポリタニズムが”人間の”理性という狭い料簡で動物や動物性を軽視するのも間違っている、と。

出羽守みたいに外から圧力で国を変えようとするのも間違っており、内側から満たされないと駄目なんだ、と。