How to practice: This set collects only the Interactive Speaking question type from the real DET (Duolingo English Test) — DET Speaking questions. No grading, no timer — solve it yourself, then tap each question to reveal the answer or model response.
Casey — Casey is a graduate student in political philosophy who is conducting research on theories of justice and their application to contemporary global inequalities. The conversation explores different philosophical frameworks for thinking about justice, obligation, and political legitimacy.
Turn 1
“I am trying to work through the tension between nationalist and cosmopolitan theories of justice. Nationalists like Miller argue that we have stronger obligations to fellow citizens simply by virtue of shared membership in a political community. Do you find that argument persuasive?”
Useful Expressions
felt obligations · morally arbitrary · political feasibility · nationalist theory
Show Model Response
I find Miller's argument intuitively appealing at one level — most people do experience stronger felt obligations to those within their immediate communities, and this empirical reality seems relevant to any normative theory that aspires to political feasibility. But I think the argument has a serious structural problem: it grounds the scope of our obligations in a feature of our situation — national membership — that we did not choose and that is distributed arbitrarily from a moral point of view. Someone born into a wealthy, stable democracy enjoys vastly better life prospects than someone born into a fragile, impoverished state through no merit of their own. It seems difficult to justify a theory of justice that treats this morally arbitrary starting difference as a legitimate basis for radically different entitlements.
Turn 2
“That is a classic Rawlsian critique. But Rawls himself, in The Law of Peoples, stopped well short of applying the difference principle globally. He argued that domestic societies bear primary responsibility for their own economic development. Does that internal consistency in Rawls's own thinking give you pause?”
Useful Expressions
Law of Peoples · difference principle globally · shared institutional structure · global interdependence
Show Model Response
It does give me pause, because Rawls is not an easy thinker to dismiss, and the fact that he drew the line at domestic borders warrants serious engagement rather than simple rejection. His argument seems to be that the global order lacks the kind of basic institutional structure — a shared system of social cooperation — that generates distributive obligations in the domestic case. But I think Thomas Pogge and Charles Beitz have mounted compelling responses to that position: the contemporary global economy is precisely such a shared institutional structure, and one that imposes constraints on the life prospects of billions of people. If the domestic original position generates justice principles because citizens are cooperating within a shared system, it is hard to see why global economic interdependence does not generate analogous global principles.
Turn 3
“Let us push the cosmopolitan position further. Peter Singer's utilitarian argument is that we are obligated to give until we reach the point of marginal utility — until giving more would harm us as much as it helps others. Most people, including committed cosmopolitans, find this conclusion too demanding. Does the demandingness objection actually undermine cosmopolitan justice theories?”
Useful Expressions
demandingness objection · utilitarian cosmopolitanism · negative duties · institutional reform
Show Model Response
The demandingness objection is one of the most persistent challenges in moral philosophy, and I do not think cosmopolitans can simply ignore it. But I want to distinguish between two versions of the cosmopolitan position. Singer's utilitarian cosmopolitanism is maximizing — it demands that we eliminate suffering wherever we can, regardless of the cost to ourselves. A Kantian or contractualist cosmopolitanism is more modest: it holds that we have strong negative duties not to uphold institutional structures that produce global poverty, and positive duties to support reforms to those structures, without necessarily requiring individual sacrifice to the point of marginal utility. I think the latter is both philosophically defensible and considerably less demanding. The demandingness objection lands most forcefully against Singer, but it does not, I think, defeat the broader cosmopolitan claim that global institutional justice is a genuine moral obligation.
Turn 4
“That is a helpful distinction. But here is my worry: even the 'modest' cosmopolitan position you describe requires political institutions capable of reforming the global order — and those institutions are largely controlled by the same powerful states that benefit from current arrangements. Is there not a structural impossibility built into the cosmopolitan project?”
Useful Expressions
political economy objection · hegemonic powers · structural difficulty · coalition building
Show Model Response
This is, I think, the most serious challenge to the practical cosmopolitan project — not a philosophical objection to cosmopolitan principles, but a political economy objection to their realizability. The structural impossibility worry is real: hegemonic powers do extract significant benefits from the current order, and have historically proven adept at shaping international institutions in ways that preserve those benefits. But I think it is important not to treat 'structurally difficult' as equivalent to 'structurally impossible.' The expansion of the welfare state in the twentieth century, the abolition of formal colonial rule, the construction of the international human rights framework — all of these were achieved against the resistance of powerful interests. They happened because coalitions of affected parties, civil society actors, and progressive movements within powerful states made them happen. The question for cosmopolitan justice is whether analogous coalitions can be built.
Turn 5
“I appreciate the historical optimism. Let me push on a different dimension: some critics, particularly from postcolonial theory, argue that mainstream cosmopolitanism is itself a form of universalism that inadvertently reproduces Western intellectual hegemony by treating historically situated Western liberal values as universal moral truths. How do you respond to that critique?”
Useful Expressions
postcolonial critique · Western intellectual hegemony · substantive moral universalism · cross-cultural negotiation
Show Model Response
This is a critique that I take seriously and that I think cosmopolitans are obligated to engage with honestly rather than defensively. There is something undeniably true in the observation that much of what gets presented as 'universal' in liberal moral philosophy has historically been developed by Western thinkers, in Western institutional contexts, and has been deployed in ways that served Western political interests. The cosmopolitan must be vigilant about the difference between substantive moral universalism — the claim that all human beings have equal moral worth — and the imposition of a specific cultural form of political organization as the universal norm. I think the former is defensible and indeed indispensable for any theory of global justice; the latter is precisely the kind of cultural imperialism that postcolonial theorists rightly critique. The challenge is to articulate cosmopolitan principles at a level of abstraction that is genuinely cross-culturally negotiable rather than simply translated from a particular tradition.
Turn 6
“To bring our discussion to a close: if you had to summarize the most defensible version of cosmopolitan justice — one that is philosophically robust, responsive to the critiques we have discussed, and politically actionable — what would it look like?”
Useful Expressions
equal moral worth · institutional obligations · epistemic humility · pluralistic deliberation
Show Model Response
The most defensible version of cosmopolitan justice, in my view, combines three elements. First, a foundational commitment to the equal moral worth of all persons, regardless of nationality — this is the non-negotiable moral core that cannot be abandoned without collapsing into a kind of tribalism that is philosophically incoherent. Second, a focus on institutional rather than merely individual obligations: the primary demand of cosmopolitan justice is the reform of the global institutional order — trade rules, intellectual property regimes, international financial architectures — that currently produces and perpetuates global inequality. This is less demanding than Singer's individual sacrifice model and more politically tractable. Third, epistemic humility about the cultural content of cosmopolitan principles: the specific institutional forms through which global justice is pursued must be developed through genuinely pluralistic, cross-cultural deliberation rather than imposed from any single tradition. That last element is where postcolonial criticism makes its most important contribution — not to the rejection of cosmopolitan justice, but to the demand that it be constructed rather than merely declared.
More interactive speaking sets at other levels · Browse the full DET question bank