Lecture 10: Global Distributive Justice Flashcards
(8 cards)
Should states transfer some of their wealth to foreigners?
“We allow distant strangers to live under conditions of deprivation that we wouldn’t tolerate at home. Are we justified in doing this?” (Fabre 2007: 96)
Range of Positions:
Equal Obligations: We have the same obligations of justice towards both fellow nationals and foreigners.
Prioritized Obligations: We owe more to fellow nationals than to foreigners.
Justice vs. Humanitarian Obligations: We owe obligations of justice to fellow nationals, but only humanitarian obligations to foreigners.
Social Justice vs. Global Justice
Social Justice (John Rawls)
Rawls’ theory applies justice within a closed system (one specific society).
Justice is focused on citizens of that society, without concern for other nations.
Emphasizes fairness between states, with a strong principle of non-intervention (sovereignty of states).
Global Justice (Charles Beitz)
Beitz argues for a global conception of justice.
The original position (the hypothetical scenario for deciding justice principles) should apply beyond a single nation, to account for territorial differences.
Individuals in this global framework would aim to minimize the risk of being born into a poor country by ensuring global distributive justice.
Pogge’s View on World Poverty and Moral Obligation
Proximity bias: We care more about people we know or interact with, leading to the moral prejudice that world poverty doesn’t require our attention.
Moral Responsibility: Pogge argues that global economic systems (created by the West) actively contribute to poverty.
Moral Obligation: We are causing harm to people in poorer countries and have a moral obligation to alleviate this poverty.
Co-nationals vs. Foreigners: Pogge denies that we should care more about co-nationals than foreigners because the global order is unfair and actively harms others.
Global Justice - Liberal Egalitarianism & Variants
- Luck Egalitarianism
Moral Arbitrary Factor: The place where a person is born (residence) is morally arbitrary, similar to race or gender.
Key Idea: Since borders are morally arbitrary, foreigners are owed the same resources as co-nationals.
Position: This is a strong variant of cosmopolitanism, emphasizing equal justice across borders.
- Sufficiency (Anderson, Nussbaum, Sen)
Moral Claim: Justice requires that everyone has enough resources to live a dignified life, regardless of borders.
Practical Relevance: While borders are morally irrelevant, they are practically relevant. Living standards differ across countries, so we don’t need to distribute the same amount everywhere.
Position: This is a weak version of cosmopolitanism, as after a certain sufficiency threshold, co-nationals can be prioritized over foreigners.
Liberal Egalitarianism II - Non-Cosmopolitans (Statists)
- Position I: We Owe More to Nationals than Foreigners
Rawls’s Law of Peoples (1999):
No global difference principle.
Principles that apply domestically are different from those applying globally.
National Self-Determination matters because of responsibility.
Weak commitment to global justice.
Commonsense intuition: borders do matter.
- Position II: We Owe Something to Foreigners, but Not Due to Justice
Nagel (2005): Justice only exists at the nation-state level.
Why: Justice is tied to institutions/organizations that can coerce responsibility from members.
This is his “political conception of justice” confined within state borders.
Global Justice Possibility: If international organizations had real coercive power over individuals, then global justice might be possible.
Global Justice - Communitarianism
Communitarianism Position
Similar to Statism:
Emphasizes particularist commitments against universalist principles.
Social justice should be based on local decision-making and deliberation.
No global obligations of justice, as people outside your community don’t share the same bonds.
Does not rule out global redistribution but claims there’s no obligation for it.
What to Make of This Position?
Weakness:
We do have some universal principles of justice that transcend local communities (e.g., human rights, fairness).
Strength:
Highlights the importance of self-determination, both national and political.
Spotlight on Miller - National Responsibility and Global Justice
Human Rights Obligations:
Miller’s View: We have an obligation to protect basic human rights globally, but this does not mean we must help meet all global needs.
Human rights serve as standards for states, but the nature of these rights can be interpreted in two ways:
Minimal Standard: Protecting essential rights like life and physical security—a basic, tolerable level of rights.
Maximal Standard: Aiming for aspirational rights, such as liberty, democracy, and non-discrimination.
Miller’s Minimal Approach:
Focuses on basic needs.
Obligation of justice is limited to protecting basic human needs globally, but doesn’t require fulfilling extensive aspirational rights like universal healthcare.
Conclusion:
Miller suggests we have a responsibility to protect basic human rights, but not necessarily to fulfill all global needs, particularly those that go beyond minimal rights.
Libertarianism on Global Justice
Core Principle: Justice is based on property rights, even across borders.
Hillel Steiner’s View:
Justice is global — principles of justice apply universally.
Moral obligations extend only to ownership rights — no broader duty of redistribution or welfare.
A just global order protects property rights regardless of nationality.
Key Idea: If a person’s property rights are violated — whether they are a foreigner or a co-national — this is unjust.
Obligation Strength:
Stronger than expected — While minimal in scope (focused only on ownership), the commitment to defending those rights applies universally.
