Summaries 10, 11, 12 and 13
Danhiela Cortes
chp-21_ta.htmlChapter21
Global Economic Justice
Copyright © 2019 W. W. Norton &Company
Background –1
Justice: the morality of personsgetting what is fair or what is theirdue
Local justice: needy people nearby, in our neighborhood, community, or country
Global justice: needy people in other countries
Background –2
- Number of people living in extreme poverty as of 2010:1.2 billion
- From 2011 to 2013, 842 million people suffered from chronic hunger.
- Number of children under age five who dieevery day from preventable causes: 18,000
- In 2005, the richest 20 percent of the worldconsumed 75 percent of its goods.
Background –3
Right:a claim or entitlement tosomething; a moral demand thatobligates others to act accordingly
Negative right:a person’s right thatobligates others not to interferewiththat person’s obtaining something
Positive right:a person’s right thatobligates others to help that personobtain something
Background –4
Duty of beneficence:a moralobligation to benefit others
Supererogatory actions:conduct thatis “above and beyond” duty; notrequired, but praiseworthy
Moral Theories –1
Retributive justice:justice concerning fairpunishment for wrongdoing
Distributive justice: justice concerningthe fair distribution of society’s goods
Moral Theories –2
Libertarian theories of justice: emphasize individual liberties andnegative rights, and reject positiverights as a violation of personal freedom
Egalitarian theories of justice: hold that justice requires equaldistributions of goods among all persons
Moral Theories –3
Libertarian views
Thelibertarianasserts that we have noduty to help the poor and hungry of theworld; we are not obligated to share ourresources with the less fortunate. If we aidthe needy, we do so as an act of charity,not because duty commands it.
Moral Theories –4
John Hospers
“The political philosophy that is calledlibertarianism . . . is the doctrine that everyperson is the owner of his own life, and that noone is the owner of anyone else’s life; and thatconsequently every human being has the rightto act in accordance with his own choices,unless those actions infringe on the equal libertyof other human beings to act in accordance withtheir choices.”
Moral Theories –5
Libertarian theories
A key criticism:
- The libertarian doctrineconflicts withcommonsense morality. It implies that we have noduty to save a drowning child even though wecould do so with minimal trouble.
- But surely we have a strong duty of beneficence topull the child from the water.
- The notion that saving her is not morallyobligatory but merely optional seems implausible.
Moral Theories –6
Consequentialist theories
- Peter Singer: We can increase the overallgood, or utility, in the world if the affluentgive large portions of their wealth to theneedy in other countries.
- On consequentialist grounds, some argue thatfeeding the hungry in countries wherepopulation is unchecked will just lead togreater tragedy.
Moral Theories –7
Egalitarian theories of justice: hold that justice requires equaldistributions of goods among all persons
- Some egalitarians insist that everyone beallotted a certainminimumamount of vitalgoods.
- Others claim that only atruly equalshare ofeverything is just.
Moral Theories –8
Egalitarian theories
A common criticism:
- Individual liberties should takeprecedence over economic equality.
- Libertarians think ensuring that peoplecan use their own legitimately acquiredresources as they see fit is moreimportant than guaranteeing thateveryone’s needs are met.
Moral Arguments –1
Singer’s argument for aiding the unfortunate
- “[S]ufferingand death from lack of food, shelter,and medical care are bad.”
- “[I]f it is in our power to prevent something badfrom happening, without thereby sacrificinganything of comparable moral importance, weought, morally, to do it.”
- Therefore, we are morally obligated to preventsuffering caused by the lack of these necessities.
Moral Arguments –2
Singer’s argument
- Singer says his argument shows that givingmoney to famine relief is not an act of charity(a supererogatory gesture) but amoral duty.
- Singer: “[W]e ought to give until we reach thelevel of marginal utility—that is, the level atwhich, by giving more, I would cause as muchsuffering to myself or my dependents as Iwould relieve by my gift.”
Moral Arguments –3
Singer on the implications of his view:
“Even if we accepted [Premise 2] only in its moderate form . . . it should be clear that we would have to give away enough to ensure that the consumer society, dependent as it is on people spending on trivia rather than giving to famine relief, would slow down and perhaps disappear entirely.”
Moral Arguments –4
Criticisms of Singer’s view
- We may have a duty to help those inneed, but we also have obligationsinvolvingrights.
- John Arthur:Each person has rights thatshould not be relinquished even to helpothers in dire need.
Moral Arguments –5
Criticisms of Singer’s view
- Contrary to Singer,desertis a factor we mustweigh when deciding whether to give food tothe hungry.
- We have an obligation to aid distant people,but we also have a duty to help those withwhom we have aspecial relationship.
Moral Arguments –6
Hardin’s lifeboat argument
- Rich countries are lifeboats carrying the affluentpeople of the world in an ocean of drowningpoor who are attempting to board the boats or otherwise grab food.
- Each lifeboat is limited in the number of peopleit can sustain. If a boat takes on any morepassengers or throws vital supplies to theunfortunates swimming nearby, both rich andpoor will perish.
- Therefore, the only reasonable option is torefuse to help the drowning people.
Moral Arguments –7
Criticisms of Hardin’s view
- The lifeboat argument is simplistic: itignores some important facts about richand poor nations.
- The survival of rich countries is not reallyatstake, andfeeding the hungry will notnecessarily capsize any boats.
Credits
This concludes the PowerPoint slide set for Chapter 21
Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues
Fifth Edition (2019) by Lewis Vaughn.
