Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Points covered: 1) Duty 2) Arguments for and against the GRD Global Justice.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Points covered: 1) Duty 2) Arguments for and against the GRD Global Justice."— Presentation transcript:

1 Points covered: 1) Duty 2) Arguments for and against the GRD Global Justice

2 Duty What is a duty? When do we have duties and how do they arise?

3 Obligations to the poor Two types of duty: 1) Positive; 2) Negative. (Pogge, pp )

4 Are we contributing (or have we contributed) to the misery of the poorest sectors of the world’s population? If so, we have a negative duty to stop harming them.

5 Harming the world’s poor (I) 1) Natural resource use: the rich benefit from the use of natural resources whilst the poor are, without compensation, excluded from these benefits (pp ).

6 Pogge’s assumptions A 1 : All human beings are entitled to benefit from the use of the world’s natural resources. A 2 : “Those who make more extensive use of our planet’s resources should compensate those who, involuntarily, use very little” (p. 204). [N.B.: A 2 might follow from A 1 ]

7 Counterarguments Those who use natural resources either (a) own them or (b) buy them; both are fair means of acquisition which involve no injustice (cf. Nozick). Response: (a) do those who have access to natural resources deserve this access? (b) Does trade in natural resources necessarily benefit the poorest?

8 Harming the world’s poor (II) 2) The rules of the international order: the ‘rules of the game’ are imposed by the rich on the poor (to the disadvantage of the latter) (p. 199).

9 Examples a) Trade agreements (WTO): - US and EU to maintain agricultural subsidies and tariffs which harm developing countries. - TRIPS increases the cost of life-saving medicines. b) Immigration: richer countries allow qualified people from poor countries residence/citizenship c) Finance: poor countries often have to borrow under terms not favourable to them.

10 Counterarguments “Poor countries have voluntarily entered into trade agreements, loan arrangements, etc. They are therefore better off with such agreements than without them”. Response: Are the bargaining positions of poor countries equal to those of richer countries or international institutions?

11 Harming the world’s poor (III) 3) The past: the disadvantaged position of poor countries was caused, in the past, by actions of rich countries (pp ) (cf. historical injustice).

12 Harming the world’s poor (III) Richer countries are very often implicated in historical injustice, whereby past generations have inflicted suffering. The effects of this injustice are still evident and ought to be redressed.

13 Global Resource Dividend Part of the revenue from the sale of natural resources (e.g. oil) should be used to reduce severe poverty.


Download ppt "Points covered: 1) Duty 2) Arguments for and against the GRD Global Justice."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google