Brock and Brighouse (2005) make a distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ cosmopolitanism, the former requiring ‘some extra national obligations’ (original emphasis), while in the latter, ‘there are no society-wide principles of distributive justice that are not also global principles’ (p.3). As the authors point out, few cosmopolitans would defend a position of total impartiality to all peoples in the world, and most would accept that it is quite appropriate for our primary attention and responsibility to be to those close to us - family, friends and those in our local area. The point is that there is not a choice between total parochialism and total impartiality, and that it is possible to maintain a balance between local, national and global responsibility and action.