(Nussbaum 1999 ). While she is a cosmopolitan, she is clearly not a liberal
Jacobin (Levy 2004 ).
In spite of their diVerences, cosmopolitans share a conviction that univer-
sal moral judgments can be made, and that cultural diVerences cannot be
invoked to justify failure or refusal to abide by the demands of morality. No
one can rightly declare an unwillingness to enter or remain within the
universal moral community. Like the Spanish scholastics, their stance is
intolerant of diVerence at least to this degree: DiVerence is to be condoned
for as long as it remains within the bounds of a standard of morality no one
could reject. Toleration, in this picture, is only a minor virtue, circumscribed
as it must always be by other, more fundamental, concerns—such as justice.
4 Difference and Recognition
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Unsurprisingly, the cosmopolitan outlook, and liberalism more generally,
have been criticized, and sometimes rejected entirely, by theorists for whom
diVerence and particularity have not been duly recognized. For Michael
Walzer, for example, the idea of citizenship of the world simply carries no
meaning, so the cosmopolitan ideal makes little sense (Walzer 1996 , 125 – 7 ).
More broadly, he questions the idea that societies can readily be judged or
criticized from the standpoint of universal morality, since a large part of
morality is tied to local understandings and meanings. Social criticism is
most eVective when it comes from within, from those who understand their
communities and grasp the meanings implicit in their practices. Only then
can there be genuine criticism and a serious confrontation with oppression
(Walzer 1981 , 1983 , 1987 , 1994 ). There will always be a temptation for greater
powers to repress particular, ‘‘tribal,’’ loyalties; but the reality is that these
communities will have to be accommodated, for parochialism cannot be
overcome, since individuals have a commitment to their own histories,
cultures, and identities (Walzer 1994 , 81 ).
Walzer’s inclination is to advocate toleration of diVerence, although he is
also wary of the capacity of groups to disrupt social harmony as they seek
political advantage in any society prepared to condone their activities (Walzer
1997 a, 98 ). But toleration has its limits, and cannot be extended to groups
moral universalism and cultural difference 589