Cosmopolitanism

I'd say 3,5 stars. Definitely a good introduction, easy to read (very well done, as usual Appiah, again). But, like usual with Appiah, I feel like his work just kind of, hangs there? It just exists, or something. Maybe too free for interpretation if there is such a thing

I read this book as an introduction to the complexities of living respectfully and humanely in a world where people do not all value the same things or organize their lives the same way. Appiah takes time in the beginning of the book to illustrate how values and ways of living can differ, while people still share some foundational beliefs. Later chapters show how difficult it can be to put a commitment to respect for other peoples and cultures into practice, and suggest alternative ways of going about it.

None of the analysis is in depth (the book is less than 200 pages), which is why I call it an introduction. It is very readable, with great anecdotes and examples from Appiah's own life to illustrate the concepts. I recommend.

There's something really clever going on in Appiah's take on ethics in a global world. He goes out of his way to point out that while the main thrust of his positive argument is “you care about X because your neighbour does” is easy to articulate, it's damn hard to get there in most ethical systems.

I don't think this will appeal or even make sense to anyone interested in defining their identity with nations and states. In many ways, Appiah's moral compass only makes sense in a post-colonial context. If you think some accident of your birth entitles you to a special or nobler moral value then he has nothing to offer you. The very point of Appiah's approach to ethics is to first realize that most of the historical precedents that are pointed to for defining moral identities are themeselves mutable. Judgements aren't static. They change over time and they change dramatically when in contact with the wider world.

Why bother reading this? In a political era where nationalism and populism is surprisingly effective, Appiah points out that the purity of moral identities is fiction. This isn't ivory tower philosophy. It's applied ethics that gets the experience of the world from a non-majority point of view–something that's really hard to find articulated so well in any work on ethics.