Global Poverty and Philosophy: Why the Capabilities Approach Applies
Although our world is becoming increasingly more technologically advanced and developed, one billion people are still expected to live in extreme poverty by 2015 (Country Comparisons). As long as humanity has existed, there have been impoverished people left behind in the wake of advancement. Many philosophical theories have been published attempting to solve global poverty, and while some are better than others, they all draw attention to various facets of the issue. Famous theories have built upon one another, giving the next generation new ideas to sift through and ultimately attempt to uncover a viable option to help those in need. The recently introduced Capabilities Approach published by economist Amartya Sen and philosopher supported by Martha Nussbaum gives the most applicable solution to a continuingly complicated problem. While revolutionary, the Capabilities Approach was only conceivable due to centuries of meticulous contemplation of a global issue spanning millennia.
Utilitarianism, a famous theory often applied to global poverty issues, first appeared in 19th century England and primarily revolved around the greatest happiness principle. Classical Utilitarianism argues that all people are of equal value, and that it should be everyone’s goal to maximize happiness because happiness is inherently good and valuable. Since Utilitarianism holds all people equal, this means that proximity to poverty does not matter because distance does not decrease the value of human life. It also means that if an action increases overall happiness, you have a duty to help those in need. (Goldworth 315)
Peter Singer, a Utilitarian famous for his belief in Effect...
... middle of paper ...
...bout Human Development." United Nations Development Programme, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. http://hdr.undp.org/en.
Goldworth, Amnon. "The Meaning of Bentham's Greatest Happiness Principle." Journal of the History of Philosophy 7: 315. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.
"Guide to Country Comparisons." Central Intelligence Agency, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook.
Pogge, Thomas. "A Global Plan to End Poverty." RSA Conference. Royal Society of the Arts. London. 1 Jan. 2013. Keynote Speech.
Pogge, Thomas, and Darrel Moellendorf. Global Justice: Seminal Essays. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2008. Print.
Pogge, Thomas, and Keith Horton. Global Ethics: Seminal Essays. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2008. Print.
Singer, Peter. "The Why and How of Effective Altruism." TED Conferences. Mar. 2013. Keynote Speech.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that seeks to define right and wrong actions based solely on the consequences they produce. By utilitarian standards, an act is determined to be right if and only if it produces the greatest total amount of happiness for everyone. Happiness (or utility) is defined as the amount of pleasure less the amount of pain (Mill, 172). In order to act in accordance with utilitarianism, the agent must not only impartially attend to the pleasure of everyone, but they must also do so universally, meaning that everyone in the world is factored into the morality of the action.
Poverty is not just an issue reserved for third world countries. Instead, poverty is a multifaceted issue that even the most developed nations must battle
In the face of media campaigns and political sanctions, the question about whether we owe the global poor assistance and rectification is an appropriate one. Despite television advertisements displaying the condition of the poor and news articles explaining it, the reality is the majority of us, especially in the Western world, are far removed from the poverty that still affects a lot of lives. The debate between Thomas Pogge and Mathias Risse regarding our obligation to the poor questions the very institution we live in. Pogge created a new framework in which the debate developed. He introduced a focus on the design of the institutional global order, and the role it plays in inflicting or at least continuing the severe poverty people are exposed to. Whilst both Mathias Risse and Thomas Pogge believe that the “global order is imperfectly developed. It needs reform rather than revolutionary overthrow”, they differ on whether or not it is just and entitles the global poor to assistance. Pogge believes that the global order is unjust as it “helps to perpetuate extreme poverty, violating our negative duty not to harm others unduly”. Risse believes that the institution is only incompletely just and can be credited to improving lives of the global poor. According to him, these improvements contribute to its justifiability and negate any further obligation we have to the poor. Through assessing their debate, it seems that one’s obligation to the poor depends on one’s conception of duty, their unit of analysis, and whether improvement rectifies injustice. On balance, it seems that we do indeed owe the poor, only we may lack the means to settle it.
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
Utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that brings about the most overall happiness. No other moral rule has universal validity. According to Rachels, Utilitarianism is known as “we should always do whatever will produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness for everyone who will be affected by our action” (Rachels). Utilitarianism has three main principles. Consequentialism says that the actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences. Hedonism states that in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters are the amount of happiness/unhappiness that is caused. The Equality Principle states that each person’s happiness counts the same. The two most important objections to utilitarianism are Consequentialism and the Equality Principle. The replies to Consequentialism and the Equality Principle, shows that Utilitarianism is not a plausible moral theory, therefore, Utilitarianism should be rejected.
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
Philosophy Public Affairs 32, no. 2 (1995). 4 (2004): 357-383. Singer, Peter; Miller, Richard "“What Duties Do People in Rich Countries Have to Relieve World Poverty”."
Utilitarianism is the view of considering everyone’s benefit as equally important versus only considering my own. For any action, the morally correct thing to do is cause the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure or benefit for the greatest number possible; while at the same time causing the least amount of pain or unhappiness for the smallest number possible.
But another very large portion of individuals like Peter Singer who also use the utilitarian way of thinking arrive at the conclusion that we should alleviate world hunger because it would increase the aggregate happiness in the world(866). Peter Singer uses the drowning child analogy to justify his position. He argues that if a person sees a child that’s drawing, and that person is capable of saving the child, that person is obligated to do so(866). In this situation the outcome is that the child is obviously happy that someone saved him, the person who saved the child is slightly less happy because his clothes were ruined, but nevertheless both are alive and well. Singer goes on to explain that we should apply this sort of thinking when it comes to world hunger, He says that if our situation allows us to help those in need, we are obligated to do so.(866) Singer and other individuals with the same understanding of the situation are basing their argument on the principle of utility, which essentially says that our actions should produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 752). The principle of utility is the only thing that matters when it comes to Utilitarianism, an action is right if it ends
For one, it limits our freedom to act as to do what Singer demands, that is, make the morally best choice would vastly reduce our freedom to make our own life choices as self-governing moral beings. In practice, utilitarianism, generally requires people to predict the long term consequences of an action, however, there is no guarantee that circumstances will turn out precisely as predicted. In the case of assistance to those in poverty, it is rather obvious that it is to a strong degree, universally good to help. Nonetheless, utilitarianism is not merely a theory for the moral solution to famine, so in other circumstances and even in the case of a poverty situation, it fails to consider different views on what happiness is. Not only that, but the theory is rather simplistic as it cannot solve every dilemma since without a doubt, every problem is unique.
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and influential moral theories. There are two different meanings to two words but at times, they can be the same perspective. Utilitarianism is different from ethical theories it makes the rightness and wrongness of an act dependent to a person. The right thing can be done from a bad motivation. There are consequences including good or bad by the act. It is between an action and their happiness or unhappy outcomes depending on the circumstances. There is no moral principle only itself of utilitarianism. It balances the individuality and community of happiness. The purpose of the morality is by making life better and increasing that amount of good deed. “Another aspect of utilitarianism is the belief that
In conclusion, there is no doubt that Sen’s approach has influenced the discourse on social justice tremendously. Although his perspective is not a theory per se, the depth and scope of the capability approach is evident in the vast amount of research Sen’s work has inspired. Sen’s contribution looks at issues of social justice from the perspective of both the individual and society. Moreover, his approach extends beyond the borders of social justice, to those of economics, development and human rights. I find it remarkable how he has been able to blur the boundaries between the various disciplines by asking questions which require attention from different fields.
In recent discussion about helping the poor, one controversial issue has been whether to help or not to help. On one hand, some say that helping the poor is very simple and doesn’t take much. From this point of view, it is seen as selfish to not help the poor. On the other hand, however, others argue that by helping others you are in fact hurting yourself at the same time. In the words of Garrett Hardin, one of this view’s main proponents, “prosperity will only be satisfied by lifeboat ethics.” According to this view, we are not morally obligated to help other countries. In sum, then, the issue is whether to help poorer countries or not.
In a contemporary world, poverty is inter-linked with systemic deprivation of rights and related to the notion of Human Development