"It’s not morally permissible for a state to give favorable treatment to its own citizens, based on their being citizens."
Actually, the reason that it is is quite obvious. Any government that doesn't do this will rapidly get voted out of office, or be removed from power via revolution. Maybe you're saying that such behavior would still be immoral, but even so, it is unfortunately guided by political necessities.
I adress that several times throughout the article. Yes, any candidate who sent all the states money away would obviously be voted out, but that just means that they should do policies that are as cosmopolitan as they can get away with. The real burden is on the voters in not being so citizenist, such that cosmopolitan candidates can be voted in.
"I hope that you will also agree that you should here opt to save the Lithuanians—a shared nationality simply gives little to no reason for special treatment."
Well yes, if you presume your conclusion, then the conclusion will follow.
The assumption is only supported by a half-of-a-paragraph intuition pump, where the unintuitiveness of the conclusion mostly comes from thinking that people can just switch national identities overnight
TLDR: National boundaries are arbitrary bullshit with no moral weight. Only legitimate necessity can create legitimate management districts.
Human rights are "universal" or meaningless. However, action must be taken locally, so that's where the emphasis should until scarcity is eliminated.
"It’s not morally permissible for a state to give favorable treatment to its own citizens, based on their being citizens."
Actually, the reason that it is is quite obvious. Any government that doesn't do this will rapidly get voted out of office, or be removed from power via revolution. Maybe you're saying that such behavior would still be immoral, but even so, it is unfortunately guided by political necessities.
I adress that several times throughout the article. Yes, any candidate who sent all the states money away would obviously be voted out, but that just means that they should do policies that are as cosmopolitan as they can get away with. The real burden is on the voters in not being so citizenist, such that cosmopolitan candidates can be voted in.
"I hope that you will also agree that you should here opt to save the Lithuanians—a shared nationality simply gives little to no reason for special treatment."
Well yes, if you presume your conclusion, then the conclusion will follow.
The assumption is only supported by a half-of-a-paragraph intuition pump, where the unintuitiveness of the conclusion mostly comes from thinking that people can just switch national identities overnight