Social and cosmopolitan liberalism

A central divide in philosophical thought about international distributive justice separates 'social' from 'cosmopolitan' liberalism. These views differ about the nature of the problem of international justice: social liberals are primarily concerned about fairness to states or societies, whereas cosmopolitan Liberals are concerned about fairness to individuals. This article explores three reasons why philosophers interested in international distributive justice often regard social liberalism as the more plausible view. These reasons have to do with alleged differences between domestic and international society: empirical beliefs about the sources of backwardness; and moral preconceptions about the fairest allocation of the costs of irresponsible economic and population policies. The article argues that none of these reasons is persuasive, and that the deep ethical distinction between the domestic and the international realms, on which social liberalism depends, is more difficult to defend that many philosophers have thought.