The issue of global wealth redistribution has become an increasingly fundamental topic in our globalized world. The vast amount of literature on this topic has left philosophers and economists to seek questions on whether there is a duty to redistribute wealth and in what way it should be distributed globally. The uncertainty over this remains a key impediment to real life progress. Nevertheless, the crucial aspect of this debate is to understand whether individuals have an obligation to redistribute wealth internationally. There are many deep controversial issues that conflict with the justness of responsibility. However in this paper, I will be using a cosmopolitan outlook by opening up the discussion of the current global situation and what duty an individual in the developed states has to redistribute globally. I will also analyze the poverty in the third world, and assess whether distributing wealth is the most effective mechanism compared to other alternatives.
Theories of global distributive justice address the following sorts of questions. Should we feel morally concerned about the large gap between the developing countries and the developed countries? What duty do us citizens have to provide assistance to the global poor? And what scale should we take the duties to?
Many theorists and philosophers have discussed these questions in-depth and much of the literature has been framed between a ‘statist and cosmopolitan’ approach. The cosmopolitan connotes as a belief in cosmopolis or a ‘world state’ and they believe that a single set of fundamental norms of justice applies to all citizens, regardless of nationality. (Heywood, 2012) Cosmopolitans usually determine that we should all be concerned about inequality, fairness...
... middle of paper ...
... 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.
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
Roy trusts that the entire world merits helpful and sympathy. In Africa, India, China, Mexico and whatever remains of Latin America there are frantically destitute individuals. Mr. Beck proposes that we take at least one million consistently and make a humanitarian indifference since those desperately poor are excessively detached and too wiped out, making it impossible to make it and that will be a method for handling the worldwide neediness. Despite the fact that Mexico has most of the frantically poor populace moving into the United States, be that as it may, the neediness can likewise be contributed by different countries.
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.
In the late 1960’s and into the 1970’s, the South Asian region of East Bengal (then East Pakistan, now the country of Bangladesh) was undergoing a severe famine, due to rampant poverty, a civil war and frequent cyclones. The lack of overseas help to this impoverished region was probably what triggered Peter Singer to write the article Famine, Affluence and Morality, wherein he claims that world hunger and famine can be prevented and possibly eradicated if everyone in the wealthy nations did their bit to help the sufferers monetarily. Singer further claims that duty and charity should not be as distinct as they are now, and hints at uniting the two. Upon careful analysis of Singer’s paper, one can find multiple loopholes in this proposal, and can conclude that Singer’s idea, while crafted out of good intentions, is neither feasible nor correct.
Jamieson, D. (2005). Duties to the Distant: Aid, Assistance, and Intervention in the Developing World. Journal Of Ethics, 9(1/2), 151-170. doi:10.1007/s10892-004-3324-9
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”."
... aiding the suffering people in third world countries like Bengal, that it captures the reader’s attention. While I believe Singer’s suggestion, that affluent people must donate all they can to the verge of almost starving themselves, is rather extreme, absurd and counter productive, I also think the essay serves a greater purpose, which is to help affluent people realise how much they take for granted, and how much of their wasted money can be used to prevent people from starving. It can be understood that although most of Singer’s premises sound good in a perfect Marxist society, in a realistic world, most people are greedy and only work to better themselves. The fact that we live in a 0.6% world (0.6% of the world population holds most of global assets, thus making them the richest 0.6%) is evidence enough to conclude that this is a self-improvement driven world.
In the article - Social Justice & the Global Economy, Pranab Bardhan examines whether social justice can survive the predatory onslaught of globalization? According to him, all is not lost, and much is within our grasp, even though globalization poses a compelling threat towards achieving equity and social justice. I wish to take some of the cogent points raised by him further in their scope.
He puts forth the principle of “Do no harm,” and it is important to consult those who are in need first before any help is extended in a situation caused by social injustice rooted in unfair and unjust government practices, poorly managed institutions, weird and ineffective policies, and “serious problems […] of law and order.” Problems which he describes as “both intricate and intensely local .” When foreign aid policies miss to give attention to these problems, the assistance extended end up highly likely to be effective only for a very short-run, is unsustainable, and will only contribute to local frustrations and dependence on IFIs for the recipients of the aid which, in turn, impedes the intrinsic development of the
Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(1), 102–130
Introduction “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is a piece written by moral philosopher, Peter Singer, who places a challenge on our traditional notions of charitable giving. The essay argues in favour of donating, and of the moral obligation imposed upon us to contribute and help the global poor with humanitarian purposes. By critically assessing Singer’s writing, this reflection paper will study the main arguments advocated for in his work, as well as possible objections. Main arguments of the article Throughout the piece, Singer highlights that ‘we ought to give money away and it is wrong not to do so.’ This statement is not merely showing that it will be commendable to give money, but failing to give will be morally wrong.
Redistributive claims aim to distribute justly the allocation of resources (Fraser, 1996:3). For example, resources of the rich are justly redistributed to help an economy that receives less. Furthermore, redistributive claims focus on the socio-economical injustices that are embedded within an economic society and are assumed wholly concerned with the injustices of class orientations (Fraser, 1996:6). Essentially, if injustices arise within redistribution, people’s participation is prevented as equals by economic structures and this causes complications since resources are denied. In denying resources, it excludes economic structures that institutionalise poverty, exploitation and inconsistencies in wealth, income and labour (Blunden, 2004). Moreover, injustices with redistributive claims raise issues with class structure. Since, the injustices lie at the heart of the economic structures, the appropriate solution would then be to restructure the economic society and by doing this, the recognition of economic classes should not be recognised and abolished (Fraser,
Through individual, national, and global aid, we can take steps to decrease the overwhelming amount of poverty in less-developed countries and even in our own lands.
Poor countries have been receiving aid from the international community for over a century now. While such aid is supposed to be considered an act of kindness from the donor nations or international bodies, it has led to over dependence among the developing countries. They have adopted the habit of estimating and including international aid in their national budgets to reduce their balance of trade deficits. It is believed that foreign aid is necessary for poor nations in order to break the cycle of poverty that ties their citizens in low productivity zones and so their economy will not be weak. However, some critics view the extension of aid to poor countries as means of keeping the nations in economic slumber so that they can wake up from only by devising ways of furthering self-sustainability. Because of these two schools of thought concerning the topic, debate has arisen on which side is more rational and factual than the other. The non-sustainable nature of international aid, however, leaves the question of what may happen in the event that foreign aid is unavailable for the poor nations. After thorough consideration on the effects of the assistance to poor countries, it is sufficient to state that giving international aid to the poor nations is more disadvantageous than beneficial to the nations. This point is argued through an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of giving international aid to the poor countries with appropriate examples drawn from various regions of the world to prove the stance.
One of the leading political philosophers, John Rawls` foundational idea was that justice is a demand of fairness. Fairness is a demand for impartiality (Sen, 2010). His work, Theory of Justice (1970) is based on the idea of justice and fairness, and he argues that it is the basic structure of society (Hoffman & Graham, 2015). Rawls presents justice as fairness as a `political conception of justice` (Farrelly, 2004). In his Theory of Justice there are two main principles of justice. The first is equal liberty, means that each individual has the right to free speech, to vote or fair trial. The second ones are equal opportunity, and difference principle (Hoffman & Graham, 2015). It is also known as distributive economic justice. Rawls argued that however every human beings are born equal, sometimes they end up being unequal because of the social circumstances they grow up in, and the different opportunities they get (Boucher & Kelly, 2009). These different circumstances can result in unequal earnings and wealth distribution. Income inequality undermining the aim of equal opportunity. Child poverty is a global issue, according to the National Equality Panel report (Child Poverty Action Group,