1 / 34

Poverty , inequality , and global Justice

Sustainable Development. Poverty , inequality , and global Justice. Three Views on Global Justice. The Utilitarian View : Peter Singer, Famine , Affluence and Morality (1972) The HR Institutionalist View : Thomas Pogge, World Povert and Human Rights (2008)

ziven
Download Presentation

Poverty , inequality , and global Justice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SustainableDevelopment Poverty, inequality, and global Justice

  2. Three Views on Global Justice • The UtilitarianView: Peter Singer, Famine, Affluence and Morality (1972) • The HR InstitutionalistView: Thomas Pogge, World Povert and HumanRights(2008) • The PoliticalView: Thomas Nagel, The Problemof Global Justice (2005)

  3. Global Justice and Cosmopolitanism • In searchofprinciplesgroundingtransboundarymoralobligations in a globallyinterconnected world: • Individualism • Impartiality • Equality • Universality

  4. JustificatoryGrounds • HumanWellbeing • HumanRights • Fairness

  5. CircumstancesofJustice • Interaction • LimitedAltruism • Scarcity

  6. MoralPsychology • LimitedAltruism • Allegiance and Partiality

  7. Distributive Issues: The Case ofExtremePoverty • Definition (World Bank): lessthan $1.25 per day (adjustedpurchasingpower) • 1.4 billion people below EP line • South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are the “centers” of world poverty

  8. Some Dimensionsof EP • Foodshortage • No savings (-> debt) • No schoolingforchildren • Unstable/unsafeshelter • No nearbysourcesofclean water • Short life-expectancy/childdeath (below 5) 1/5 children • Psychologicalburdens (powerlessness, no “social basesofself-respect”)

  9. EP Kills 18 Million per Year • In the pasttwentyyears, thisadds up to more deathsthanwerecausedbyall the civil and internationalwars and governmentrepressionof the entire 20th century (the centuryof Hitler and Stalin).

  10. Affluence • 8% of the world’s populationownshalf the world’s wealth. • 1.100 billionaires in the world, for a combined net worthof $4.4 trillion.

  11. Singer’s “DrowningChild Case” • “On your way to work, yousee a littlekiddrowning in a smallpond. You can saveherwithoutdangerforyourself, butyou’llgetmud on yournewshoes and suit, and willbe late for work”. • Shouldyousaveher?

  12. “Drowningchildcases” happen 27.000 times a day • Children in EP dieforavoidablecauses, liketrivialdiseaseslikemeasles or stomachdisorders, mostly due tolackofclean water. • Isthere a morallyrelevantdifferencebetweensavingonechildwesee, and savingone in farawaylands?

  13. Singer’s Argument • Premise 1: Suffering and death are bad • Premise 2: Ifitis in yourpowertopreventsomething bad from happening, withoutsacrificinganythingnearlyasimportant, itis wrong notto do so. • Premise 3: Bydonatingtoaidagenciesthat can bedone. • Conclusion: Ifyou do not donate toaidagencies, you’re doingsomething wrong.

  14. Featuresof the Argument • No account ofproximity or distance • Irrelevanceofspecial relations • [The “Global Village” sweep] • Non-contingentobligations

  15. AgainstNon-ContingentObligations • The Fair Share View (Murphy, Appiah) • Butnoteveryoneparticipates. The DrowningChildrenvariation, and the variationofmoraldemands.

  16. So WhatTo Do? • Giveasmuchaspossible: at least up to the point at whichbygiving more onewouldbeginto cause serioussufferingtooneself and one’s dependents. • The distinctionbetween duty and charity collapses: justice and morality coincide.

  17. TooMuch? • System Breakdown • Reiteration

  18. IsItMy Job? DivisionofLabor The InstitutionalistApproach (ContributingratherthanActing)

  19. The InstitutionalistApproach: Pogge’s Cosmopolitanism and HumanRights • 2 distinctions: • Legal vs. MoralCosmopolitanism • Interactionalvs. InstitutionalCosmopolitanism

  20. IndirectObligation • Oneoughtnotto cooperate in the impositionof a coercivepolitcalorderthatavoidablyleaves HR unfulfilledwithoutmakingreasonableeffortstoprotectitsvictims and topromoteinstitutionalreform.

  21. Circumstancesof Global HumanRights • HR are contingent on the existenceof social institutions • Their global scope iscontingent on the global nature ofsuchinstitutions

  22. Betweentwoextremeviewsofobligation • Libertarianism • Utilitarianism

  23. No Positive Duty • Dutiesto do somethingrespondto the negative obligationnotto violate HR: ifweacquisce in a global institutionalorderthatentails HR violations, webreachthat duty (the priorvoluntaryconductclause)

  24. Featuresof the obligation • We are responsibleforourgovernment’s conduct on the global, not just the domestic stage. We are responsiblefor the global order and allthatitengenders, not just whatitestablishes. We look at the macro not the micro level. We look not at distributionaloutcomesbut at the system thatproducesthem. Bytheselights, the poor and starving are impoverished and starved. No communal bond ispresupposed.

  25. Nagel and The Problemof Global Justice • 2 centralissues: the relation betweenjustice and sovereignty, and the scope and limitsofequalityas a demandofjustice

  26. The [Hobbes + Rawls] View • Justicecannotbeachievedexceptwithin a sovereign state. Governmentisitsenablingcondition. • Egalitarianjusticeis a requirementthatappliesdomestically. Doesconsistencyrequirethatitsstandardsbeappliedglobally?

  27. Link betweenJustice and Sovereignty • Coordinatedconductisneeded on the side ofnumerousagents, unachievableifnotbacked up byforce, givenassurance and free rider problems. Voluntaryconventionssupportedonlyby the mutualrecognitionof a common interest, or even the pure unfoldingofother-regardingmotives, are notenough.

  28. Nagel’s Argument • Justiceisnothumanitarianassistance; and injustice can existwithoutanyonebeing in desperateneed. Humanitariandutieshold in virtueof the absolutelevelofneedof people we are in a position to help. Justiceisconcernedwith relative assessments, with the relations between the conditionsofdifferentclassesof people.

  29. Cosmopolitanism and the PoliticalConception • C: the demandsofjustice derive from a concernfor the fairnessof the terms on whichwe share the world withanyone. States are instrumentstothat. • P: Justiceis a politicalvalue: the 1° virtueof social institutions. States are not mere instrumentstobuttriggersofjustice: the citizensof a sovereign state are put in a relation tooneanotherthey do not share with the restofhumanity. Justiceisan associative obligation: weoweitonlytothosewithwhomwe stand in a strong political relation (and wehave no obligationtoexpand the circle). No global justiceuntil the world comestobegovernedby a unifiedsovereignpower.

  30. Differences • Fundamentalunitsofmoralconcern: individuals vs. peoples. Humanitarianrequirements stand (the “moral minimum”), butdemandsofjusticecannotbejustifiedifnotas associative obligations (ofcertain people tooneanother, thosewhorelinquishtheirautonomy and acceptcoercion under centralizedcontrol).

  31. Autonomy, Coercion, Justification • Corcivesovereignpowerisnotsomethingwevoluntarilyconsentto, butwhichrequiresouractivecooperation. Forthisreasonitmustbelegitimate: thatcreates a presumptionagainstinequalityof treatment, requiringjustificationforit. The claimtojusticeis the claimthat the society onelives in bejustlygoverned. An institutionthatonehas no choicebutto join mustoffertermsofmembershipthatmeethigherstandards.

  32. A Familiar Dilemma • Prosperousnationswant more governance on a world scale, butnot the consequentlyheightenedobligations and demandforlegitimacy. They do notwanttoincrease the rangeofthosetowhomthey are obligedasthey are towardstheirowncitizens -and citizens do notwantthateither.

  33. Can the Global EconomicOrderCountas a Global Institution? • No: itlackscollectiveenactment and corcivepower; and itdoesnotaskfor the sortofauthorizationbyindividualsthatestablishes the obligationtotreatallofthemequally.Instead, itis set up by free bargainingamongself-interestedsovereignstates. Itis the interestsofstatesthat are pursued, and thereis no overall authority.

  34. Nagel’s Conclusion • Unjust and illegitimateregimes are the necessaryprecursorsof the progress towardslegitimacy and democracy, becausethey create the centralizedpowerthat can becontested on groundsofjustice, and reformed. The pathfromanarchytojusticemust go throughinjustice.

More Related