The Rich Mans Debt : Ethical Obligations

Over the years living conditions around the world have improved, even in the poorest of countries. Despite this there is still a clear difference between high-income countries and low-income countries. High-income countries are defined as countries with very productive economic systems where the majority of people have fairly high incomes, while low-income countries are defineed as having low economic systems where most people are poor and many do not meet living standards (Macionis et al., 2005, pg 439). Even though poverty can be found all over the world citizens in low-income countries are living in absolute poverty rather than relative poverty

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

In her piece, “Why Global Inequality Matters,” Nancy Birdsall argues that global inequality is an issue because it can negatively affect the social life, the political process and the economy of countries (especially developing ones). She looks at “how global integration affects poor versus rich countries (and people within countries), and on the resulting limits to poor countries’ (and poor people’s) ability to capture the potential benefits of globalization.” In order to argue her point further, she expounds on why global inequality matters and explores the possible role that globalization may have in perpetuating global inequality. Inequality matters, especially in developing countries with already weak institutions, because it may runs “the risk

An innocent child begs her mother for food, a single tear running down her cheek. The fires of life that once filled the girl’s eyes slowly begin to fade. The mother embraces her child, tells her the pain will be gone within a few moments. As she holds her, she feels the warmth slip away; her little girl’s body becomes engulfed by empty coldness. So much could have been done to save that life, from local government support to foreign aid, yet not enough aid was given. And so, society is posed with the question of “How much aid should wealthy nations provide for developing countries?” This paper will look at the philosophy behind this question by analyzing two articles.

            According to the State of the World's Children 2001, a child born today in the developing world has a 4 out of 10 chance of living in extreme poverty.   Absolute poverty is "poverty by any standard...[it] is life at the very margin of existence" (218-219).  Confronted with "malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality, and low life expectancy...beneath any reasonable definition of human decency" (219), those in absolute poverty struggle merely to

Poverty, the state of being extremely poor, affects a large proportion of the global population who are unable to access adequate levels of food, shelter, healthcare and education. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that reducing poverty is considered to be a net positive without addressing the concept from a variety of theoretical lenses. The World Bank quantitatively defines those living in poverty as individuals with less than “$US1.90 PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) per person, per day”, by these metrics global poverty has decreased significantly, from approximately 44 percent of the global population in 1981 to an estimated 9.6 percent in 2015 (WB PovcalNet, 2016). Although this is an impressive improvement there are still many people living in poverty around the world. This essay will examine some of the methods used to combat poverty, as well as how it has changed over time. These methods include both free trade, fair trade and their alleged opposition to each other as well as comparing domestic and foreign aid.

A thorough interpretation of the assigned source is required before arguments to validate the position of the essay is offered. This source is linked to some of the concepts of globalization like transcendence. Considering that globalization was meant to keep the world connected and to help decrease things like poverty and the the digital divide. Globalization has only aided in helping the rich get wealthier and leaving the underprivileged to fend for themselves. The author of the source is heavily biased toward the vast poor, as a result the audience this source is targeting are the elite rich, world leaders, and economic powerhouses of the world.

Ranging from the UN World Food Program to Oxfam, initiatives aim at improving conditions for those trapped in poverty, alleviating hunger and malnourishment, as well as enable individuals to become self-sustainable. Some of the programs and assistance provided to countries is not without drawbacks and criticisms. For instance, World Bank and IMF development assistance has been accused of interfering with countries’ ability to manage affairs sovereignly (e.g. conditions attached to the receipt of aid). Likewise, US AID assistance comes with foreign policy attachments that may not always be appreciated. Furthermore, even though NGOs are becoming more mindful of local conditions and cultures, they inadvertently promote western perceptions concerning human rights and values. Yet, despite differences in goals, approaches, and other aspects at appears reasonable to expect sustained, cooperative efforts to reduce poverty. The cynic may argue that nations pursue self-serving goals and aim to distract citizens from internal problems, while NGOs’ involvement justifies their existence…

Theorists have argued that some poor nations are held back due to political corruption, religion and a culture of poverty. According to the conflict approach, poor nations, are poor because of unequal relations with powerful nations and not because they lack resources. The economic and political systems of the powerful nations dominate and exploit the weaker ones in trade and other relations while preventing them from becoming dependent. Reader pg. 271 on global stratification, suggest that in the future power and influence will only grow. Technological advancements are playing a role in creation and reinforcing of the global economies.

The question on whether affluent individuals have a moral obligation to assist the poor is a widely controversial subject, and this was even apparent in our very own ethical reasoning class. So the question still stands, is it our duty to assist the poor? The answer is much simpler than people make it out to be. Yes.

There exists a global order that proclaims its primary purpose is to facilitate cooperation between rich and poor nations. The presence of said order creates an uneven distribution of advantage among nations, an imbalance sometimes thought to be the result of an array of independent factors. Mathias Risse suggests the global order harms third world nations through Uncompensated Exclusion; where privileged countries are given several advantages over the worse-off in regards to natural resources. Here the benefits of the impoverished are minimal. This defies the moral rule of Egalitarian Ownership, which describes all natural resources as belonging to all humankind. By denying the global poor an equal portion of natural resources during international commerce the order violates their people’s human right to “a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing and

Those considered poor in developing countries often lack the fundamental access to buy adequate food, water, or other basic needs. Although recent World Bank data has revealed that world poverty has declined 43 percent since 1990 and 52 percent since 1981, poverty is still a worldwide phenomenon that is prevalent even among the most highly industrialized countries . Presently, according to World Bank data, “1.22 billion people live on less than $1.25 a day in 2010” and “2.4 billion people live on less than US $2 a day in 2010.” This is almost half of the world’s population. The scope of this study is limited somewhat because poverty is a multidimensional concept in which a voluminous number of factors can be causally related to this phenomenon. Therefore, this research will seek to answer what impact does the geographical, governmental, and human development characteristics have on the rate of poverty in developing countries.

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).

The world system theory created by Immanuel Wallerstein suggests that wealthy countries benefit from other countries and exploit their resources and citizens. This model recognizes the minimal benefits that are enjoyed by citizens of low status, as well as the maximal benefits enjoyed by citizens of high status. This suggests that a country’s economic development is based off the capitalist world system. Wallerstein believes the capitalist world-economy is based on the creation of surplus appropriation through the expansion of productivity. As a result, this benefits the elite by increasing profits. “The capitalist world-system is based on a two-fold division of labor in which different classes and status groups are given differential access to resources within nation states; and the different nation states are given differential access to goods and services on the world market.” (Elwell 2013) Both of these markets are distorted by power.

Many millions of people are excluded, left behind in squalor . . ." (Annan 2000). In spite of the fact that the correct effect of globalization on neediness is exceptionally hard to evaluate, look into assessments demonstrate that destitution has expanded by 82 million, 14 million, and 8 million in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and Central Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean separately. Investigating this, globalization itself can 't be considered in charge of the vast majority of the neediness in creating nations as different variables, for example, terrible administration, poor financial strategies, feeble changes, and so forth have additionally embroiled. Be that as it may, globalization is a main consideration. As guaranteed by Princová (2010), globalization prompts to riches redistribution – 'worldwide lavishness and neighbourhood destitution '. It makes the rich nations, for this situation, the industrialized countries, to end up distinctly wealthier, and the poor countries, the creating nations, to end up distinctly poorer.