Globalization of justice
The world today, despite the economic development that took place since the end of the second world war, the ongoing globalization and deep structural changes, still features high inequality both between developed and underdeveloped countries and within each country. In view of this situation, many political philosophers developed the concept of globalizing justice. They all have the same goal, reduce world poverty, however the approaches to tackle the issue are different. After clarifying the position and the points of disagreements between some of the most prominent philosophers in this field, namely John Rawls, Thomas Pogge and Peter Singer, this essay will try to address the question as to whether world poverty is a moral or a justice issue. In a concluding section, I will give my position on the debate.
John Rawls believes that world poverty is a moral issue, implying that citizens do not have a duty of distributive justice towards those suffering from poverty. However, Rawls considers that citizens from richer countries have a duty of assistance towards poorer countries. Rawls believes that if a country is poor, it is solely caused by domestic factors, named under PDPT, purely domestic causation of poverty theory. In sum, Rawls do not want to expand distributive justice worldwide (Rawls, 1993).
On the other hand, Thomas Pogge firmly believes that the world poverty is a global justice issue, and considers that the fact that some countries are extremely poor is unjust. He believes that if a country is poor it is mainly caused by external factors. He stresses the fact that richer countries are exploiting the poorer countries by imposing high tariffs on trade; this prevents the poorer countries to develop and have an economic growth. Thomas Pogge’s solution to prevent the world poverty would be to globalize justice and extend the distributive justice worldwide. (Pogge, 2004)
Finally, Peter Singer has a less political approach...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document