Socioeconomic Justice In Thomas Nagel's Three Types Of Justice

There are three types of justice that I want to consider. According to the first conception, this is usually called cosmopolitanism. Nagel’s “The Problem of Global Justice”, states that cosmopolitanism is a form of justice that develops from an equal concern or a duty of fairness that we owe in principle to all our fellow human beings. Also, and there are institutions to which standards of justice can be applied to fulfill that duty. But the moral basis for the requirements of justice that should govern those states is universal in scope: it is a concern for the fairness of the terms on which we share the world with anyone (Nagel, 2005, 119-120).

Nagel’s example of historical injustice of being born in poor rather than rich is considered as arbitrary determinant of one’s fate. Because, what determines a human being is their achievement to establish a well-developed society, not based on income and status.

Thomas Nagel elaborated further about Socioeconomic Justice as he claimed:

It depends on positive rights that we do not have against all other persons or groups, rights that arise only because we are joined together with certain others in a political society under strong centralized control. It is only from such a system, and from our fellow members through its institutions, that we can claim a right to democracy, equal citizenship, nondiscrimination, equality of opportunity, and the amelioration through public policy of unfairness in the distribution of social and economic goods (2005, p. 127).

Thus, he concluded that everyone may have the right to live in a just society, but we do not have an obligation to live in a just society with everyone. The right to justice is the right that the society one lives in be justly governed and secured by institutions. I will disagree with the first and second premises and support the third regarding socioeconomic justice. According to Pogge’s “Realizing