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.
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.
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.
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
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
To this, I would explain how wealthy nations have a quite high standard of living, access to clean water, food, great opportunity, etc. Many individuals who make up the world’s poor are not in a place where they can change their circumstance. This could be due to health conditions due to the lack of human rights, lack of housing, lack of opportunity, corrupt government, environmental factors, where you are born, etc. Many of these factors are not issues that would concern wealthier nations and are presented to them outside of their control. So if only some parts of the world are faced with these challenges, why should they be further punished for it? They certainly did not ask to be born into such conditions. The world’s poor have a clear disadvantage that does not allow them to live the same quality of life as others which is unjust. Everyone should be granted equal
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”."
The way in which foreign aid is distributed is highly ineffective and fails to achieve its sole purpose. Corruption ravages the developing world; greedy diplomats and fraudulent officials are often known to embezzle vast amounts of the aid money given to help those most in need. As Lord P. T. Bauer of London School for Economics famously said, foreign aid is “an excellent method for transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” The money does not reach those who need it but is instead pocketed by dishonest members of government in foreign countries. Over the past years more than half a billion pounds have been invested in Africa yet there is little visual improvement in extreme poverty, deprivation and the child mortality rate. Evidently, Britain’s aid scheme is uselessly trying to combat poverty against a brick wall of bureaucracy. Without doubt this money would be better invested within the UK improving health and education and lowering the deficit.
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,
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).
Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(1), 102–130
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.
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.
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.
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,