DEBATE: Are you for or against "global citizenship" a way forward in the 21stcentury?

Take a stand.

[Should SMC carry on with the mission of "global citizenship" in light of recent events?]

Write a one page, single-spaced essay. To succeed on you must:

Define "global citizenship" (Drawing from course materials, e.g. use the Earth Charter or Kant's definition.)

Use one global problem throughout your paper to make your case, e.g. population, war, climate change, poverty, etc. Draw support for your grasp of the problem from films assigned.

Briefly distinguish for & against positions according the values in conflict.

State your position/thesis/conclusion.

Make at least one argument foryour position drawing support from at least one of the arguments in the course readings.

Make at least one argument against your opposition's best argument. You must select your opposition's argument from course readings.

EXAMPLES of definitions for the paper:

ROBUST:
"For the purposes of this paper, "global citizenship" means standing as one for the values of respect and caring for life on earth, including ecological integrity, justice, democracy and peace."

MINIMAL:
"I will argue against "global citizenship" defined in the interests of global capitalism as "sustainable development."

NOTES:
Be sure you read & understand the intro to this unit, pp. 385 - 387.

"Global citizenship" can be defined in a number of different ways. Part of the challenge of the essay is for you to make it clear what it means to you. Please use only the readings for this course to define the concept.

Making your case on a global problem does not mean you should ignore the local implications. The persuasiveness of your case depends on bring the global home.

This is not a paper about the efficacy of ethics, i.e. whether ethics can or cannot solve our problems. Rather it is about the values you stand for, i.e. your ethics. Hence, you would be missing the point if you argued that ethics cannot save us.