Analysis Of Walzer, Pogge, And Sachs Approach On Global Economic And Social Justice Essay

The use of the term global apartheid has been on the rise when referring to the existing social, political and economic inequality on the global scale. It is based on the merging of concepts and practices from South-African apartheid alongside globalization. In this paper, we will consider the appropriateness of such term and whether it truly encompasses all aspects of global inequality. We will consider South-African apartheid along with its associated focus on race as well as globalization along with its associated focus on class and nationality. We will examine how these concepts encompass the statist, racialised, classist new world order.

Jan Narveson 's Moral Matters plays an important, if controversial role in the field of applied ethics. Narveson 's unique, contractarian approach analyzes ideas as diverse as suicide, abortion, sexual ethics and affirmative action. Amongst the more contentious aspects of the thoughts expressed in the book is his view of global poverty. Narveson extends foundationalist, anarcho-capitalist approach to this issue; arguing that while charity is morally virtuous, there is no moral obligation on the part of the global rich or developed nation to alleviate the global poor from their precarious position. He also argues that by continuing free trade, enough economic growth will occur to relieve the global poor regardless. *This essay will elaborate on Narveson 's position on global povery and criticize said position in the following aspects; *it 's counter intuitiveness*, *descent into skepticism or relativism* and a failure to account for the interconnectivity found in global financial institutions, *capitalism* and climate change.

When it comes to creating a global economic order the goal is for there to be an order in which there is no poverty. Without the presence of global poverty then this is a sign that the general framework may be working. In chapter nine of the Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account Brock addresses the Global Economic Order and Global Justice. Within the Global Economic Order she addresses multiple questions, but the main questions she seeks to answer is the current global economic order conducive to creating a global order that is viable and alleviates the poverty in the world? In todays’ society there is a belief that ‘free trade’ or removing barriers to trade such as subsidies to domestic and import tariff. In essence opening up the economy

It is riveting to believe that three billion people around the world suffer from poverty and with the help of several nations, nothing has been done to prevent further damage, in fact, more damage is caused in the process. The thousands of problems that countries continuously face cannot be resolved by the actions of others who are not responsible for their problems. The only way that a nation can improve is by on its own putting the effort towards fixing their problems, while many people think otherwise. Independent countries are looked down upon when they only think of themselves. Most people's first thought is to think of the possibility of them being in the position of the less fortunate, which leads to them feeling guilty.

This essay will analyse philosopher Peter Singer’s argument on the duties that should be allocated to wealthy people in terms of assisting people from undeveloped nations to combat global poverty. In the first section, his argument will be explained and summarized, followed by the second section which will present the minor flaws opposing philosophers find in his argument, however find his overall argument to be valid. Singer’s primary argument on world poverty goes as follows. Singer argues that as humans, we have a moral duty to try to prevent emotional or physical harm being inflicted on others, as long as we aren’t required to sacrifice anything of comparable significance (e.g. harm ourselves to the same degree.) He says, in relation to an analogy presented that requires ‘Bob’ to decide between the life of a child and his precious car, “the point it raises is a serious one: only when the sacrifices become very significant indeed would most people be prepared to say that Bob does nothing wrong when he decides not to throw the switch.”

What are some issues that threaten the immediate stability and balance of the world? War? Nukes? Global Warming? Economic fluctuations? The answer is none of the above. All of these are admissible issues, but they don’t come near to the immediate impact and effects that accompany world poverty. An estimated three billion people live on less than $2.50 a day, yet there hasn’t been any drastic actions taken to counteract this predicament in a sustaining manner (Shah). However, writers such as Peter Singer and Garrett Hardin are doing a stupendous job bringing this topic into the spotlight. Both “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor,” and “The Singer Solution To World Poverty,” offer insight to this serious issue. Both authors

Within this nine-chapter, two-part book, author Paul Farmer single handedly both analyzed, and harshly critiqued the central and deeply rooted ideas of poverty throughout the world. In his book, Pathologies of Power, he tackles the daunting and largely misunderstood topic of poverty “to reveal the ways in which the most basic right-the right to survive- is trampled in an age of great affluence... (pg.6). Farmer, is both a professor of medical anthropology at Harvard, a doctor, and a founding director of Partners in Health, which is a global health organization that is concentrated in the most poverty-stricken areas to bring proper health care to those in need. These positions have allowed him to travel to some of the most underdeveloped areas in the world, with the largest portion of his time spent in Haiti. The experiences and observations that Farmer made in these locations provided him with a foundation of first-hand knowledge to come to the conclusion that the inequality toward the poor in terms of their basic human rights creates social violence, which is a

The proposed principle on the need to generate good things when the overall cost of extending such good deeds would be nothing morally comparable depicts that the rich countries have a major implication in helping those residing in abject poverty across the globe. He demonstrates the importance of extending the good things to those suffering due to economic misfortunes without sacrificing morally comparable. With the rich countries residing in a luxurious ways, the poor countries across the globe witness millions of deaths especially among children. These millions of children deaths could be avoided through rich countries role in generating good things. Furthermore, Singer illustrates that we are able to prevent bad things when the cost to you would be nothing morally comparable. Thus, rich countries consist of the power and capabilities to prevent the bad things including sufferings and deaths occurring in the poor countries globally with the cost of nothing morally comparable. The money, technologies, and knowledge in the rich countries could be used to prevent the deaths, sufferings, diseases, and poor housing living conditions happening in the poor countries across the globe. In a weak principle proposed by Singer of preventing bad things when the overall cost incurred would be nothing of morally significant, a clear insight is drawn on the role of the rich to help those poor. The principle conveys how in the contexts of global hunger and poverty, the rich countries continue to behave immorally by failing to help the poor nations hence the need for a radical change on our ways of

Global economic justice will produce the best possible economic outcomes for all inhabitants of our planet. The U.S and other developed nations should share resources with poor nations. Through a framework of common economic goals and open borders, global suffering will decrease and world peace will begin to take shape. Indeed, the U.S and other developed nations have a moral obligation to decrease global economic hardships, since the adequate resources are available.

We have a choice: to do what we can in support of global economic justice, or become the oppressor. (Post Hoc)

Inequality plagues every nation in the modern world. Often times, inequality is addressed by governments in an attempt to ease the tensions between the upper and lower classes, by distributing wealth more fairly. However, their attempts do not always work; unhappiness and discontent begin to appear. Nations, however, must realize that equality cannot be forced, as it is entirely too utopian and isn’t desirable or ideal, since it does not inspire growth or development in the people of a nation. Forced equality is a direct cause of inequality and all of the factors that go along with it, such as social stagnation, constant conflict between social classes, and an unfair nation.

This paper discusses the ideas presented by Richard Wilkinson, in the video How economic inequality harms societies (2011). Three compelling concepts arise from the video which are that there was no longer a correlation between gross national income and health and social problems; it is also possible to attain greater equality as evidenced by what some countries are doing to reduce the income gap; and inequalities vary based on their health impact across the social gradient but nonetheless is present from top to bottom. In order to tackle the health problems and improve the health of individuals within societies, social justice actions geared at the inequalities seen in the healthcare system and other institutions are crucial. This paper also

There is a multi-pronged debate as to the resolution of the problem of global poverty and hunger—who should be responsible, if the solution should be relief or developmentally focused, etc. Yet on a moral level, before one can ask how the problem is best solved one must ask why the problem should be solved. James Sterba noted in his work that justice is giving people what they deserve (134). The question then is, what do people deserve and who is responsible for ensuring that they get what they deserve? Specifically in the case of hunger and poverty, should we, collectively and individually, be obligated to assist those suffering from absolute poverty or hunger and why? Deontological and utilitarian ethicists have provided multiple answers for and against the obligation to assist. I argue that Onora O’Neill’s Kantian approach best addresses the roots of our obligation, provides the best framework for practical action, and overcomes the majority of the main challenges facing modern economic justice theories.

In reaction to gross and compounding economic disparities in the international sphere, cosmopolitan philosophers like Moellendorf have addressed the international state, claiming that the degree of inequality is unjustifiable. Moellendorf operates with a Rawlsian understanding of ethical relations, but expands this notion from the domestic sense into the international sense, claiming that the degree of globalization is sufficient such that it creates an association in which the interdependence is “sufficiently strong, largely non-voluntary and constitutive of a significant part of the background rules that govern members’ lives,” forming the basis of duties for distributive justice. From this understanding for the need for global distributive justice, Moellendorf claims that the main strategy to address this inequality is through a global progressive tax.

Unfortunately, it was estimated that roughly 1.2 billion people in 1993 lived in extreme or absolute poverty, that which Robert McNamara regards “‘a condition of life so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality and low life expectancy as to be beneath any reasonable standard of human dignity’” (Singer 219, 220). These estimates can be projected at nearly 2 billion today. A large majority of the people living in absolute poverty resides in underdeveloped countries. Among the nearly 4.4 billion people in these countries, “3/5 lives in societies lacking basic sanitation; 1/3 go without safe drinking water; 1/4 lack adequate housing; 1/5 are undernourished, and 1.3 billion live on less than $1 a day” (Speth 1).