The aim of this paper is to analyze the two paradigms of cosmopolitan normativity, Hobbesian one and Kantian one, by a method of comparative study. Hobbesian paradigm is summarized as the ``constraint of self-interest for the maximization of self-interest``, and Kantian one is summarized as the ``rational categorical imperative independent of self-interest``. In short, the former is an attempt to relate the ethical and political normativity to our natural self-interest, and the latter is an attempt to justify it as a part of the pure practical rationality independent of self-interest. But I advocate that Kantian ``Homo moralis`` and Hobbesian ``Homo economicus`` should reconcile themselves on the political stage for the sake of the realization of global peace because all moral ``shoulds`` could prove its effectiveness only if they are ``good`` and ``right`` at the same time for us. This implies that these two paradigms of normativity could be complementary to each other by filling their own roles within their own spheres without coming into antagonism with each other in one and the same sphere.