Last week, I had an enlightening discussion with Sunstein about the pressing issue of climate justice, the intriguing idea of “moral cosmopolitanism,” and the uncertain future of federal bureaucracy under a potential second Trump administration. Here’s a recap of our conversation, trimmed down for conciseness and clarity.
In your book, you mentioned, “My starting point is this: Every individual should be valued equally, regardless of where or when they live.” That seems to challenge today’s trend, as we drift from the ideals of universality and shared responsibility.
I admit, writing this book feels a bit like celebrating folk music just after Dylan switched to electric. The timing isn’t ideal.
Or maybe it’s perfect in its own ironic way.
True, folk music has its charm.
Moral cosmopolitanism takes on various forms. The less controversial view is simply that nations shouldn’t harm one another. For instance, if Canada releases pollution that impacts the people of Maine and Vermont, it’s clear they’ve crossed a moral line. Similarly, if Mexico were to emit harmful substances into the air, endangering lives in Texas, our demand to stop wouldn’t be about foreign aid but about protecting lives. This kind of cosmopolitanism, where causing harm to neighbors is wrong, still holds up today.
There are other viewpoints too. One suggests that if we can assist a nation facing dire situations at a manageable cost, we should. An even more assertive stance would argue that, in practical policymaking—not just theory—people from other countries should be valued as much as our own citizens. That’s a bold statement, and not one I’m ready to fully endorse.
Even the milder viewpoint, that we shouldn’t harm others, is it really thriving now? A decade ago, it seemed our empathy was expanding. But today? Just look at JD Vance clashing with the pope over the responsibilities Christians have to the world.
