Ethics, Globalization and Sustainability
1. A classic reference: John Rawls
Armstrong – Global distributive justice: what and why?
1.1 – Some facts about global poverty
The World Bank defines poverty as having less than 2 US dollars per day to live on, extreme poverty as having
less than 1.25 US dollars per day. In 2015 this changed into 1.90 US dollars per day, so the first definition isn’t
really used anymore. People are just extremely poor, or not poor. Important is the purchasing power parity: in
India people can buy way more for 2 dollars than in the United States.
The Millennium Development Goals move us some distance away from this focus solely on monetary income,
including indicators of education, literacy, health care etc. Another set of goals is the Sustainable Development
Goals.
The big picture suggests that the absolute number of people in poverty remain fairly static, although extreme
poverty is declining. This decline is mostly seen in China and India, where rapid economic growth happened,
which may be concealing a reality of very little economic progress for the ‘bottom billion’ of humanity (e.g. in sub-
Saharan Africa).
1.2 – The idea of global distributive justice
Distributive justice concerns the way in which the benefits and burdens of our lives are shared between us, not
only economical, but also benefits and burdens of education, health care etc. A principle of distributive justice tells
us how some particular benefit or burden ought to be shared out. Theories of distributive justice differ within
different aspects of distributive justice:
- The content of principles
o What are our entitlements or rights? (corresponding to benefits)
o What are our duties? (corresponding to burdens)
- The scope of principles, which can very from a single society to the entire world. Global distributive
justice is any theory that suggests that there are some entitlements and thus duties of justice which
have global scope.
1.2.1 – Duties of justice and duties of humanitarianism
There are two important questions, if we want to suggest that there is an obligation to tackle global poverty.
- Who does that duty attach to?
o Individuals: separate people have this duty, e.g. by giving money to welfare
o The collective: collectives of people, or organisations (iNGOs, such as Amnesty, or iGOs, such
as Unicef and Unesco) have this duty, because, for example, they only have the resources and
capacity to address global poverty.
- What kind of duty is it?
o A duty of charity, founded on humanitarian principles. These principles tell us that we ought to
respond to global poverty because of the basic humanity of the people affected by it.
o A duty of distributive justice
There are different ways to explain the distinction between these two duties:
- Superficial/fundamental distinction. Duties of justice are somehow more fundamental in their objectives,
whereas duties of humanitarianism are superficial. The latter argue for a redistribution of wealth without
asking fundamental questions about who is entitled to that wealth in the first place, why there is global
poverty and what features of the global system might be contributing to it. But it seems that also
accounts of justice aren’t always asking fundamental questions.
- Stringency distinction. Duties of justice are more stringent than humanitarian ones, and that they are
enforceable. A stringent duty is one that is firm and difficult to avoid (but not expensive or demanding);
the stringency of a duty corresponds to the importance of fulfilling it.
- Enforcement distinction. Duties of justice are morally enforceable; it would be potentially justified for
someone to compel you to perform them.
So, duties of global justice are stringent and enforceable, and they apply wherever in the world they happen to be.
Any account of global justice will pick out at least some entitlements which apply globally, and specify at least
some duties, applying across national borders, to respond to those entitlements.
1.2.2 – Positive and negative duties of justice
A positive duty is a duty to do something good for an other person; a negative duty requires us not to do
something that is bad. The view most people share is that negative duties are more stringent than positive ones,
because it costs less energy to refrain from bad things than to actively do good things. This means that there are
certain things we should not do to people on the other side of the world. Realistic claims though can be that we
have no moral duties at all outside our own community, or that we should defend our own self-interest because
then we shall be able to create a secure world in which people’s basic interests might be protected. But even
1. A classic reference: John Rawls
Armstrong – Global distributive justice: what and why?
1.1 – Some facts about global poverty
The World Bank defines poverty as having less than 2 US dollars per day to live on, extreme poverty as having
less than 1.25 US dollars per day. In 2015 this changed into 1.90 US dollars per day, so the first definition isn’t
really used anymore. People are just extremely poor, or not poor. Important is the purchasing power parity: in
India people can buy way more for 2 dollars than in the United States.
The Millennium Development Goals move us some distance away from this focus solely on monetary income,
including indicators of education, literacy, health care etc. Another set of goals is the Sustainable Development
Goals.
The big picture suggests that the absolute number of people in poverty remain fairly static, although extreme
poverty is declining. This decline is mostly seen in China and India, where rapid economic growth happened,
which may be concealing a reality of very little economic progress for the ‘bottom billion’ of humanity (e.g. in sub-
Saharan Africa).
1.2 – The idea of global distributive justice
Distributive justice concerns the way in which the benefits and burdens of our lives are shared between us, not
only economical, but also benefits and burdens of education, health care etc. A principle of distributive justice tells
us how some particular benefit or burden ought to be shared out. Theories of distributive justice differ within
different aspects of distributive justice:
- The content of principles
o What are our entitlements or rights? (corresponding to benefits)
o What are our duties? (corresponding to burdens)
- The scope of principles, which can very from a single society to the entire world. Global distributive
justice is any theory that suggests that there are some entitlements and thus duties of justice which
have global scope.
1.2.1 – Duties of justice and duties of humanitarianism
There are two important questions, if we want to suggest that there is an obligation to tackle global poverty.
- Who does that duty attach to?
o Individuals: separate people have this duty, e.g. by giving money to welfare
o The collective: collectives of people, or organisations (iNGOs, such as Amnesty, or iGOs, such
as Unicef and Unesco) have this duty, because, for example, they only have the resources and
capacity to address global poverty.
- What kind of duty is it?
o A duty of charity, founded on humanitarian principles. These principles tell us that we ought to
respond to global poverty because of the basic humanity of the people affected by it.
o A duty of distributive justice
There are different ways to explain the distinction between these two duties:
- Superficial/fundamental distinction. Duties of justice are somehow more fundamental in their objectives,
whereas duties of humanitarianism are superficial. The latter argue for a redistribution of wealth without
asking fundamental questions about who is entitled to that wealth in the first place, why there is global
poverty and what features of the global system might be contributing to it. But it seems that also
accounts of justice aren’t always asking fundamental questions.
- Stringency distinction. Duties of justice are more stringent than humanitarian ones, and that they are
enforceable. A stringent duty is one that is firm and difficult to avoid (but not expensive or demanding);
the stringency of a duty corresponds to the importance of fulfilling it.
- Enforcement distinction. Duties of justice are morally enforceable; it would be potentially justified for
someone to compel you to perform them.
So, duties of global justice are stringent and enforceable, and they apply wherever in the world they happen to be.
Any account of global justice will pick out at least some entitlements which apply globally, and specify at least
some duties, applying across national borders, to respond to those entitlements.
1.2.2 – Positive and negative duties of justice
A positive duty is a duty to do something good for an other person; a negative duty requires us not to do
something that is bad. The view most people share is that negative duties are more stringent than positive ones,
because it costs less energy to refrain from bad things than to actively do good things. This means that there are
certain things we should not do to people on the other side of the world. Realistic claims though can be that we
have no moral duties at all outside our own community, or that we should defend our own self-interest because
then we shall be able to create a secure world in which people’s basic interests might be protected. But even
