Answer 4 of 5 questions.About 3 pages total -- REQUIRE READING FROM POWER POINT --
Global Justice
Our Responsibility to
Distant Others
David Hume 1711-1776
Scottish Enlightenment thinker (with Adam Smith)
Developed British empiricism
Denied chair at Edinburgh University (for atheism)
Precursor of utilitarian ethical theory (Bentham, James Mill)
Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746)
Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow
A founding figure of the Scottish Enlightenment
Source of moral judgment is “moral sense” (a natural faculty for distinguishing right and wrong)
Adam Smith (1723-1790)
Contemporary of Hume
Best known for The Wealth of Nations (1776)
First work: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Moral theory centered on the faculty of sympathy
Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751)
Hume sets up the contemporary debate by stating that different theories hold that either reason or sentiment is the exclusive source of moral judgment.
He acknowledges that this division within ethical theory can already be discerned within ancient (western) philosophy.
Hume’s general position: neither reason nor sentiment alone can account for morality; they must always act in conjunction.
“Sentiment” takes the form of an “internal sense” (parallel to the “outer sense” of sense perception), which evokes moral reactions.
Morality and Usefulness
Hume believes that moral judgment can only be motivated by human self-interest.
This does not mean that everything passing as morally good is really just selfish.
Moral judgments and action relate to general human welfare, rather than an individual’s interests alone.
As with Enlightenment thinking more generally, Hume rejects religious theories of human morality.
The origins of justice
Hume sets out to prove “that public utility is the sole origin of justice”.
If all people in a society could satisfy all their desires all the time, there would be no need for justice; in other words, justice is about balancing interests.
Justice relates to the need to distribute goods in a situation of relative scarcity; this idea suggests immediately “social justice” in distributive terms.
There also needs to be a sense of common interest for justice to arise among a certain set of persons.
Finally, justice also stems from interdependence between persons living in a society; this idea stems from the reality of “the division of labor.”
The right to private property
Property rights are based on the general principle of morality: general utility. This follows John Locke’s (1632-1704) natural right theory.
Hume follows Locke’s idea of justice as a distribution of goods following the labor invested to produce them.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued in his Discourse on Inequality (1754) that unequal divisions of property were highly immoral.
In 19th century socialism certain elements of Rousseau were developed into Proudhon’s (1809-1865) “property is theft” idea.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
An influential political theorist
Often seen as a precursor to 19th century socialist theory
His Émile offers an early account of child-centered pedagogy
Admired by French Revolutionaries and later Romanticism
Global Poverty (under $2/day)
Life Expectancy
Net Aid/GDP (2008)
Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (1972)
This is famous article argues we all have a strong moral obligation to alleviate suffering if it is our power.
Singer’s test case is widespread famine that, at the time, was affecting East Bengal (Bangladesh).
Singer’s basic moral principle: “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” (614)
There are two further qualifications: 1) distance is not morally significant, and 2) others’ ability to help is not significant.
Analysis of Singer’s Argument
Singer says that distance and the prospect that others can help are psychologically, but not morally significant.
Singer argues that helping others in distress should be considered morally obligatory, and not voluntary acts of “charity.”
Objections:
This is too drastic a revision of our current moral framework. Response: morality requires that we challenge our normal tendencies of thought.
This might not produce the overall highest levels of well-being or happiness. Response: equivalent moral goods of all are respected.
Overseas aid should be the concern of governments, not individuals. Response: both governments and individuals should give.
John Arthur, “Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code”
Arthur argues that Singer’s position rests on the implicit claim: All human life is of equal moral consideration.
Arthur admits an element of equality in our moral thinking, but insists that there is also an element of moral entitlement.
Equality relates to “negative” rights, which preserve the individual against harm from others.
Entitlement relates to “positive” rights, which express what is owed to an individual on account of their own activities (“just deserts”).
The basic fault in Singer’s approach is that he places all the emphasis on negative rights and fails to acknowledge entitlements.
Analysis of Arthur’s Article
Arthur follows David Hume in seeing the “ideal moral code” as arising out of social utility: morality is an expression of collective self-interest.
Arthur contends that Singer is burdening our moral code with unrealistic expectations that place altruism at odds with self-interest.
Singer’s position is likely to produce less good: if people are obliged to give, this may act as a deterrent to wealth generation: why earn it to lose it?
Thus neglecting the entitlement aspect of our moral code could have the perverse consequence of making us less capable of helping the needy.
Thomas Pogge, “Eradicating Systemic Poverty”
Pogge’s Argument
Pogge identifies three key ways in which wealthier nations and their inhabitants can be said to damage poorer nations:
International organizations and agreements (e.g. WTO, NAFTA)
Unequal ownership and exploitation of natural resources (e.g. oil in Africa)
Consequences of violent, repressive historical relations (e.g. British India)
In sum, Pogge’s argument is that those in wealthier countries must acknowledge their moral responsibility for benefiting from poorer countries suffering due to the causes 1)-3).
The right response to this responsibility is to reform the international distribution of wealth to correct the current glaring imbalance.
Holmes Rolston III, “Feeding People versus Saving Nature”
Global Population Density
Rolston’s Argument
The basic argument: the moral duty to prevent human suffering does not necessarily take precedence over care for the environment.
This is true for both moral and prudential reasons: we do have moral duties relating to other species and to natural ecosystems; we also materially rely on these for human biological viability.
If the point of anti-poverty measures is simply to allow a constant acceleration in global population growth, this will result in destruction for all life forms. We will therefore be fueling our own destruction.
Sometimes we must prioritize the health of non-human life over that of human populations. This involves a shift from ‘homocentric’ (human centered) to ‘ecocentric’ (life centered) ethics.