普世主義 vs 愛國主義: 孰好?孰壞?

在現代世界，民族─國家（nation-state）的重要性是無庸置疑的，而民族主義、愛國主義與普世主義之爭由來已久。馬莎‧紐斯邦（Martha Nussbaum）在1994年的一篇文章再次牽起新一輪的辯論。本文會介紹紐斯邦和幾個回應者的討論，綜合反對她和支持她的主要論點，並探討這幾個問題：愛國主義在道德上孰好孰壞？道德關懷的普遍性與愛國主義的特殊性之間是否有矛盾？普世主義是否優於愛國主義？本文對各種立場作出批判性評估，最後認為最合理的立場是：紐斯邦的原則性普世主義問題重重，但普世主義作為一種理想仍然是有價值的。一些協調性的立場（如公民愛國主義）也是可取的方案，但最後的答案也要視乎不少處境的因素。

In the modern world, the importance of nation-states is undeniable. The debate between nationalism/patriotism with cosmopolitanism has a long history. An article written by Martha Nussbaum in 1994 has attracted a lot of responses, and leads to a new round of debate. In this essay, I will introduce Nussbaum's cosmopolitanism and summarize the arguments for and against her position. I will explore these questions: Is patriotism a morally good thing or bad thing? Is the universality of moral concern incompatible with the particularity of patriotism? Is cosmopolitanism a better position than patriotism? I will critically evaluate various positions concerning this debate, and propose that the most reasonable position is as follows: Nussbaum's cosmopolitanism as it stands is quite problematic, but the ideal of cosmopolitanism is still valuable. Some reconciliatory position like civic patriotism is a defensible position, but the final answer depends on a lot of contextual factors.