Monday, April 26, 2010


Globalization might sound great. We learn more about the cultures of other countries. We get to try different foods, different clothes, and different music. We also can help out each other in times of need. Everyone learns to accept each other, in theory. However, globalization also brings with it other concepts, such as cosmopolitanism and the idea of a world government. The danger is there.

Cosmopolitanism is the idea that all of humanity belongs to a single moral community, which means, one nation’s actions would be judged on the basis of an international set of moral laws. This may sound great. After all, America’s morals would probably be a huge factor in the creation of the international set of morals. America’s morals are what allowed us to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Also, if America ever acted up, like we did by abandoning Afghanistan after pushing back the Soviets, then we would be held accountable to our own moral laws. When I say moral laws, I don’t necessarily mean the ICC. I mean the invisible and understood moral rules that are spread through the process of globalization. These moral rules, however, allow us to destroy other nations. Here’s an example: Christianity focuses on spreading its religion and moral views. This is called converting. When Christianity established this set of moral rules in the European/Middle Eastern region, it had the ability to announce war on the Islamic world. The Crusades are known to be the Christian wars for the holy land. However, its ability to continue derived from the moral rules that the Christians had put into place. The Muslims were seen as a threat to the Christian way of life. Therefore, it was okay to annihilate them (of course, the Christians were not successful in annihilating the Muslims). In this way, globalization leads to a more interconnected world, where the moral rules and threats to security allow larger nations to justify acts of violence against weaker nations.

Also, globalization can lead to a world government. Keep in mind that this is different from a single moral community. In a single moral community, the invisible threads are tied between different nations. A world government, however, is something that the nations create. This world government would have slightly more visible strings attached to each of the nations. A world government is like a puppeteer that the puppets made. Why is a world government bad? A world government has the ability to stop immoral acts and crimes against humanity after all. A world government is not bad because it is powerful. It is bad because of the way it uses its power. Rather, a world government is bad because of the way it is forced to use its power. For instance, egalitarianism becomes much more possible with a stronger central government, and it is very likely to get out of hand. However, the world government would be put into place completely equal rights after birth because of the push it receives from the nations. The danger here is not in the concept of strings itself, but in the visibility of the strings. If the strings were invisible, a world government would be a positive thing for the world. However, the nature of globalization would likely bring about a very visible world government.

This blog post may seem to have sidetracked slightly. However, globalization is not bad because it connects the world. It is bad because of what the connection would lead to.


  1. I agree with the point that globalization brings the idea of a world government. This idea would not be approved by all and has no chance of occurring any time soon. There are to many different cultures and forms of government. The world can not be ruled by a single world government. The cosmopolitism that may occur with globalization will never allow the unification of a single set of morals. There are to many countries that have different or completely opposite morals compared to others.

    When Nick talks about the spread of religion in globalization, it caused me to think of a different view of globalization around its religious aspects in cultural changes. Certain religions can not stand others such as certain Muslims can not stand the Jews in Israel. The simple fact that certain groups of people fight each other mainly around religion reinforces the argument that the world government can not exist at this time due to so many different ways of life people on this planet live by.

    The closing statement is strong because he links the information of his essay to a overall belief about how globalization effects the world. I believe the idea of globalization is a good thing but the things it may lead to hurts it. Globalization is a practice that needs to be limited to regions where outside cultures are welcomed and globalization should be restricted from regions where people do not like changes.

  2. Aside from Nick's stream of conscienceness writting, he makes some very vaild points and ties in arguments that should be more prominant in this debate. Jeon's last sentence summed up his scattered essay completely and made the picture he was trying to paint all the more beautiful. Speaking of, Nick does a wonderful job of including examples and metaphors to get his point across. This quality is admirable in a subject that people might not be as dusted up on as say, healthcare.

    Moreover, his points about cosmopolitanism and world government were made but could have been executed in a more clear style. At times, his work felt rushed and hard to follow. Overall I feel like I was able to grasp the main purpose of his rant. Jeon trys to almost warn people about the effects of globilazation and how , while it may be a beneficial thing in theory, in reality it sucks.

    The ramifications of globalization could be larger than a planet could withstand. The power struggles, the gap in culture and the desire to have it all will take over and become the driving factor to life in its simplest form.

  3. Nick, I agree with most of you points but you have to admit that if globalization were hindered then the U.S. would pretty much collapse into itelf and loose its foothold in world politics -- something which cannot be allowed to happen. In this sense, globalization, in certain limits, must be allowed to develop no matter the costs. I really like how you talked about the fact that the U.S. would use globalization as a means of spreading its morals and justifying the wars it participates in. The example you used also put everything in perspective all though i would argue that there is no morality in religion but thats off topic.