Part II Paper 10: Political Philosophy / Global Justice: Lecture 1: Chris Thompson

Transcription

1 Part II Paper 10: Political Philosophy / Global Justice: Lecture 1: Chris Thompson cjt68@cam.ac.uk 1

2 Overview of the lectures 1. Global poverty 2. Cosmopolitan theories 3. NaConalisCc theories 4. The law of peoples 2

3 Overview of the lectures 1. Global poverty 2. Cosmopolitan theories 3. NaConalisCc theories 4. The law of peoples 3

4 Readings Pogge, T. (2001) PrioriCes of Global JusCce, Metaphilosophy, 32(1/2):6-24. Pogge, T. (2005) World Poverty and Human Rights, Ethics and Interna4onal Affairs, 19(1): 1-7. Singer, P. (1972) Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries. 4

5 Summary Global poverty 1. Pogge 1. QuanCficaCon of global poverty 2. ColonisaCon 3. The Lockean proviso 4. Global insctucons 2. Singer 1. The pond analogy 2. Problems of distance 3. Problems of mulcple agents 5

6 1. Pogge 1/3 of all human deaths are due to poverty (18m,pa). 6

7 1. Pogge 1/3 of all human deaths are due to poverty (18m,pa). 1/4 of all people live below the internaconal poverty line (enough for a nutriconally adequate diet and essencal non- food items). 7

8 1. Pogge 1/3 of all human deaths are due to poverty (18m,pa). 1/4 of all people live below the internaconal poverty line (enough for a nutriconally adequate diet and essencal non- food items). 1/6 without access to safe water. 8

9 1. Pogge 1/3 of all human deaths are due to poverty (18m,pa). 1/4 of all people live below the internaconal poverty line (enough for a nutriconally adequate diet and essencal non- food items). 1/6 without access to safe water. 1/3 without access to basic sanitacon. 9

10 1. Pogge 1/3 of all human deaths are due to poverty (18m,pa). 1/4 of all people live below the internaconal poverty line (enough for a nutriconally adequate diet and essencal non- food items). 1/6 without access to safe water. 1/3 without access to basic sanitacon. 1/3 without access to electricity. 10

11 1. Pogge DfID has a target of spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas development aid. 11

12 1. Pogge DfID has a target of spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas development aid. And yet* 70% of people think aid should be scaled back 64% of people think it s wrong to ring- fence aid from cuts *ICM survey via Sunday Telegraph 12

13 1. Pogge DfID has a target of spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas development aid. And yet* 70% of people think aid should be scaled back 64% of people think it s wrong to ring- fence aid from cuts Why are people unenthusiascc with regard to aid? *ICM survey via Sunday Telegraph 13

14 1. Pogge DfID has a target of spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas development aid. And yet* 70% of people think aid should be scaled back 64% of people think it s wrong to ring- fence aid from cuts Why are people unenthusiascc with regard to aid? Inefficient spending. *ICM survey via Sunday Telegraph 14

15 1. Pogge DfID has a target of spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas development aid. And yet* 70% of people think aid should be scaled back 64% of people think it s wrong to ring- fence aid from cuts Why are people unenthusiascc with regard to aid? Inefficient spending. NaCons, like Russia, China or Indian, are wealthy enough to help themselves. *ICM survey via Sunday Telegraph 15

16 1. Pogge There are three ways in which the developed world has caused poverty: 1. ColonizaCon 2. ViolaCng the Lockean proviso 3. Unfair trade rules 16

17 1. Pogge - colonizacon Much of the wealth in the developed world was accumulated during the colonial era. Slavery, genocide, thel If the unequal levels of wealth were not generated by a fair process, the result cannot be fair. C.f. Nozick. 17

18 1. Pogge - colonizacon But can the current generacon be held responsible for the harm caused by previous generacons? 18

19 1. Pogge - colonizacon But can the current generacon be held responsible for the harm caused by previous generacons? If we accept the benefits, we must accept the burdens. 19

20 1. Pogge - colonizacon But the wealth inequalices would be the same without colonizacon. 20

21 1. Pogge - colonizacon But the wealth inequalices would be the same without colonizacon. Parfit s future generacons problem. We scll harmed these people. 21

22 1. Pogge Lockean proviso Nor was this appropria4on of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was s4ll enough and as good leb, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less leb for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water leb him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same. Second TreaCse of Government 22

23 1. Pogge Lockean proviso [W]hat enctles a global elite to use up the world s natural resources on mutually agreeable terms while leaving the global poor empty- handed? - Pogge Consider the case of contribucon to global warming. Or consider the deplecon of fish stocks. 23

24 1. Pogge global trade The global insctuconal order is shaped in the interests of developed nacons. Trade rules, protecconism, internaconal law Intellectual property rights Support of corrupt regimes Vulture funds Allowing the sale of natural resources The insctuconal order causes poverty. 24

25 1. Pogge SoluCon? Global Resources Dividend (GRD). Those who make more extensive use of the planet s resources should compensate those who use litle. The GRD should: Be simple and easy to administer AdministraCve costs should be low Only have a small impact on essencal goods Be focused on resources whose use should be discouraged Global carbon tax? 25

26 2. Singer 26

27 2. Singer 1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. 2. If it is in our power to prevent something bad happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally to do it. 27

28 2. Singer 3. It is in our power to prevent something bad happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. 4. Therefore, we ought, morally to prevent the suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care. 28

29 2. Singer The argument is valid (modus ponens). The conclusion (4) follows if the premises are true. Premise (1) is uncontroversial. Premise (3 ) is true as a mater of fact. : Polio vaccines 8p per dose Measles vaccines for 14p MeningiCs vaccines less than 31p. 29

30 2. Singer Premise (2) takes no account of distance. 30

31 2. Singer Premise (2) takes no account of distance. We may be more likely, as a mater of fact, to help people closer to us but that does not mean we should (descripcve/ normacve discnccon; dual- process theory). An epistemic issue we may be more aware of problems in close proximity. But we cannot say that we are ignorant of the problems in the third world. An effeccveness issue we may be able to do more good at a local level. An issue of social contract we may have more obligacons to those we have direct relaconships with. 31

32 2. Singer Premise (2) takes no account of whether you are the only one who can stop something bad from happening, or if there are millions who could. 32

33 2. Singer Premise (2) takes no account of whether you are the only one who can stop something bad from happening, or if there are millions who could. It may be a psychological fact that we feel less of an urge to help if others could help, but that does not have moral significance (again, a descripcve/ normacve discnccon; Genovese or bystander effect/ diffusion of responsibility). 33

34 2. Singer UClitarianism is very demanding. But we could weaken (2): 2. If it is in our power to prevent something bad happening, without sacrificing anything of moral importance, we ought, morally to do it. This would mean you don t have to give up your savings for university, but it does mean giving up some consumer items. 34

35 2. Singer When we spend money on non- essencals we are failing in our duty to save someone s life c.f. refusing to save the child in the pond because we don t want to get our clothes muddy. 35

36 Next week 2. Cosmopolitanism 36