Global Ethics Notes PDF

Nationalism and the overriding concern for fellow-citizens and the risks connected to the principle of sovereignty and the right to self-determination. Political Realism or the arch enemy of global ethics because it denies any ethical commitment or principle above sta...

Nationalism and the overriding concern for fellow-citizens and the risks connected to the principle of sovereignty and the right to self-determination. Political Realism or the arch enemy of global ethics because it denies any ethical commitment or principle above states. Lecture 7 This lecture will be entirely devoted to HRs. We talked about key political theories of GE. Today let’s move on Rights-based theories, our last tool of the Toolbox. Third Tool: Rights-based theories 1. Global Human Rights 2. Critiques of the Rights As a matter of fact, it is not easy to talk about HRs, it is true that the rhetoric of HRs is all around us nevertheless, every day brings further evidence of the unacceptable divide in our world and the harsh statistics of millions living in poverty and in conflict are truly upsetting. In order to explore the nature of HRs and how they function in GE theories and in practical task to build a more just world, we’ll consider 6 main topics: Definition of HRs: the question is what is the nature of them? Establishment of HRs: the question of implementation of them Development of HRs: the ongoing advancement of HRs thinking History of HRs: what are the origins of the idea that underpins HRs Types of HRs: logical structure HRs and FGM: as usual, the key study of FGM will be used to clarify the arguments discussed in this lecture. Definition At this level the goal is to understand what HRs are with a general description of the concept rather than a list of specific rights. We can start by defining them as follows: HRs are norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal and social abuses. Let’s get through it step by step, how can we do it? It is a very simple method. We begin with a four part explanation of a right: a) HRs are rightsà Rights held by individuals simply because they are part of the human species or the human family. They are shared equally by everyone regardless of sex, race, nationality or economic background. b) HRs are pluralà they address a variety of specific problems such as guaranteeing fair trials, ending slavery, ensuring the availability of education, preventing genocide and so on (very different areas of application indeed). Some philosophers advocate list of HRs but nevertheless accept plurality. c) HRs are universalà At stake here is the idea that all living humans have HRs, one does not to have a particular kind of person or belonging to a specific nationality or religion to have them. From this point of view, race laws are the exact opposite. Included in the idea of universality is some conception of independent existent, this is a very important feature: people have HRs independently of acceptance or enactment as law, the approach is that it permits critics of repressive regimes for instance to appeal to HRs whether are not those regimes accept these rights or recognize them in their legal systems. d) HRs have high priorityà HRs are matters of “paramount importance” and their violation is a great affront to justice. So, if HRs did not have high priority, they would not have the ability to Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) compete with other powerful considerations such as national stability and security, individual self- determination and national and global prosperity. Consider that high priority does not mean that HRs are absolute, they should be understood as resistant to tradeoffs but not to resistance. What does it mean? Consider this example: when the right to life conflicts with the right to privacy, the latter will generally outweigh. So, there seems to be priority variation with HRs. To this, we can add four defining features: e) HRs are inalienable entitlementsà they cannot be taken or given away. This means you cannot lose these rights anymore you cannot cease being a human being. In particular circumstances obviously some through not all may be sustained or restricted for instance one who endorses both HRs and imprisonment as punishment for serious crimes must hold that peoples’ rights to freedom of movement can be forfeited temporarily or permanently by just convictions of serious crimes but punishment that all prisoners’ rights are taken away. f) HRs are interrelatedà in the sense they are all connected to one another. Universal Declaration of HR recognizes the interrelatedness of different HRs for example the right to works art 23 and the right to rest and leisure art 24 are related to the right of standard of living and to the right of security in the event of unemployment, sickness art 25. g) HRs are interdependentà it means that the level of enjoyment of one right is dependent on the realization of other rights. For instance, the right to vote and participate in public affairs may be of little importance to someone who has nothing to eat. Furthermore, the meaningful enjoyment is dependent for instance on the realization to the right of education. h) HRs are indivisibleà all civil, cultural, economic and social rights are equally important. They are inherent into the dignity of every human person and consequently all HRs have equal status and cannot be positioned in hierarchical order. That makes 8 features in total. Establishment of HRs We are now dealing with issues related to the problem of implementation. Consider one extremely important point: the Universal Declaration of HRs has been proclaimed as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations that means that HRs set standard that governments should try to attain nevertheless consider that HRs are not legally binding in the way domestic laws are unless national implementing legislation is passed that is why in invoking HRs it is important not only to identify the elements considered to be entitlements but also to specify the agents that have the duty to bring about the enjoyment of those entitlements. Said that, we can sketch out the problem of implementation as follows: what is at stake here is the identification of rights holders who by virtue of being human have a claim to certain entitlements and be duty bearers, who are supposed to act in such a way to realize the entitlement associated with those claims. Now then who are the primary duty bearers? First of all, States not just them, all of us but by ratifying the different UN HRs treaties, states automatically assume the principle rule of guaranteeing these rights. Looking at the scheme, we can see that the scope of the state is threefold: respect, protect and fulfil. Obviously, there are problems with implementation that as we can imagine is still some way off, sometimes states act to promote HRs only when it is in their best interest. Consider also this side of the problem: the incorporation of HRs norms in constitutions and the reforms of domestic law are not entirely sufficient in implementing them into domestic practice. But it is worth remembering there are also international mechanisms authorized to enforce some respect for Hrs. Think for instance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal which has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Historically, the ICC began functioning on 1 July 2002, the date that the Rome Statute entered into force. Rome Statute is a multilateral treaty which serves as Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) the ICC foundation and governing document. Consider also the ICC only has jurisdiction to investigate crimes which have taken place into nations or states that are party to the Rome Statute or have accepted the court jurisdiction and this is a problem. Development of HRs UDHRs is the must universal HRs document in existence delineating the thirty fundamental rights that constitute the basis for a democratic society but the enumeration for HRs was not simply frozen by the declaration in 1948 by the UUN General Assembly in Paris on 10th December 1948 and drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world. Since those times, dozens of treaties and agreements that create binding legal obligations for states and intergovernmental declarations have supplemented these proclamations of rights. The development of international HRs depends on how many states ratify it - meaning make a legal binding commitment to the various treaties – consider signature of treaty usually notifies agreement to the content of treaty whereas ratification indicates a country’s consent to be bound by the treaty. History of HRs Very short conceptual history. The doctrine of HRs rests upon the particular fundamental philosophical claim, the existence of a truly universal moral community comprising all human beings everywhere and at all times. This kind of moral universalism posits the existence of rationally identifiable transcultural and transhistorical moral truth. The origins of moral universalism also known as “Natural Law” within Europe are typically associated with writings Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Grotius and Locke. We will focus our attention especially on John Locke. John Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense they are born with certain invaluable natural rights among these fundamental rights Locke said are life, liberty and property. For Locke, the protection and promotion of individuals natural rights was the sole justification for the creation of governments, and he went so far as to say that individuals are morally justified in taking up arms against their government in case it systematically and liberately fails in its duty to secure individuals possessions of natural rights. We may notice the resemblance with US Declaration of Independence adopted by the Congress in July 4th, 1776. Someone even says that John Locke inspired Thomas Jefferson and James Madison when wrote the declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Likewise, very similar ideas were found in the French revolution and in the founding document of the republic, the Declaration of Rights of men and the citizens. Part II Types of Rights: the Hohfeldian framework of analysis The history of rights shows there are different kinds of rights and analysis reveals that most familiar rights such as of free expression or private property have a complex internal structure. The four basic components of rights are known are the Hohfeldian elements after the American legal theorist who discovered them. These are liberty (or privilege), claim (negative/ positive), power and immunity. Consider that liberty and claims define the so-called “primary rules”, i.e. requiring people perform or refrain from performing particular actions. Power and immunity are the “secondary rules”, i.e. specify how agents can introduce and change primary rules. Privilege (or Liberty)à A has the privilege to do X if and only if A has no duty not to do X. Ex: you have a liberty to pick up a shell that you find on the beach, this liberty is clearly a privilege but why? This is to say you have no duty not to pick it up. Similarly, you are free to sit up in a free seat in the cinema or to paint your bedroom red, these are also privileges. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Claimà A has a claim that B do X if and only if B has a duty to A to do X. Consider here that every claim right correlates to a duty in at least one duty bearer, this is logical, what is distinctive of claim right is that a duty bearer duty is directed at the right holder. Ex: the child’s claim-right against abuse correlates to a duty in every other person not to abuse him. This also illustrates how a claim rights can require duty bearers to refrain from performing some actions, they have duty of noninterference. Bodily and property rights are paradigmatic rights with claim rights at their core. Powerà A has a power if and only if A has the ability to alter her own or another’s Hohfeldian elements. Thus, endowing you with a corresponding privilege. Consider for instance a neighbor waves his claim that you do not enter his property by inviting you into his home or the state has a general power to impose taxes via legislation and the citizen (or another legal person) is liable to be subject. Liability means subjection or responsibility. Consider also that once a taxation scheme is specified through legislation the power liability relation produces a concrete right duty relation. In other words, the state has a legal right to collect the amount due and the citizens has the duty to pay. Immunityà B has an immunity if and only if A lacks the ability to alter B’s Hohfeldian elements. Ex: the US Constitution’s First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Consider US Congress lacks the ability within the constitution to impose upon American citizens a duty to neal daily before a cross. Since the congress lacks the power, citizens have an immunity which is a core element of an American’s citizen right to just freedom. Further point especially relevant: there is a traditional distinction between two types of human rights: negativethat are respected by non-intervention (it means that a negative right requires only that other people do nothing to violate a right for instance claim rights against abuse, self- determination or freedom of thought and speech) and positive that require resources for its realization and they may include civil and political rights such as protection of persons which requires someone else such as the police force provides adequate protection as well as economic and social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, healthcare and a minimum standard of living (as they are enlisted in Art 25). Some other framework of analysis: Henri Shue – Basic Rights Now the question is, how should rights be given priority? Henri Sue professor of political and IR at Oxford University is convinced that the answer is to divide basic rights from other rights. So, Henri’s approach presents an extremely power and influential argument for the claim that liberty alone is not ultimately sufficient for granting all HRs. To put in another words, he argues that many of rights imply more than mere individual liberty and extend to include the security from violence and the necessary material conditions for personal survival. Basic rights provide according to him, a minimum standard no one should be permitted to fall below, and these rights are prerequisite for exercising all other rights and these basic rights fit particularly well into discourse about what should be provided in emergency situations and to those living in poor countries. A life that does not have these rights is unacceptable for sure. Think for instance to the right to adequate food, this right is recognized in the 1948 Declaration of HRs as part pf the rights to an adequate standard of living and is enshrined into the 1966 international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. This right is minimum but in fact is very demanding, the right to adequate food involves the right to safe food for instance and this implies a state obligation to adopt legislation imposing duties on private food producers to ensure that only safe food is marketed. Another framework of analysis: Ronald Dworkin – Rights as “trumps” Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Dworkin was professor of law and philosophy at NY University and University College London. He agreed that rights have special normative force and the reason that rights provide are for him particularly powerful or weighted reasons which override reasons of other sources. Dworkin’s metaphor is rights as “trumps”. This metaphor suggests rights trump non-right objectives such as increase in national wealth or a minority possession of rights against discriminatory treatment should trump any and all considerations of all possible benefits that the majority would derive from discriminating against the minority group. HRs and FGM HRs approach provides a normative argument for saying that the procedure is wrong and more solid framework for campaigning against the practice of FGM that may violate a wide range of HRs enumerated in the Children’s convention. For our purpose, we can understand FGM as a subset of all physical integrity right violation. Drawing on Hohfeldian scheme, let’s start with primary rules (liberty and claim). Under liberty perspective the right to bodily integrity means you are free you have privilege to control your body and this means you are the master of it. It means that to other people are not saying in the use in your body and they should not use, hurt it or force you to use it in a certain way. Under a claim perspective, this is you claim against bodily intrusion against non- consensual assault or invasion and the right is held against all other persons and the state all of which have the duty not to invade my body. It is a claim to bodily authority, self-determination against interference. Now the secondary rules (power and immunity). Immunity is a protection against others altering your claim, but you have also the power to renounce or transfer your claim, this power is very important. Consider this example: if one could not wave one’s property claims, one could lend our land, sell or give one’s property away. Similarly, if one could never wave one’s right to bodily integrity one could never grant a surgical permission to operate, in the case of FGM there is a debate. Governments may wish to recognize as exception to a prohibition to FGM when an adult undergoes the procedures has given her inform consent. Consider the Cairo declaration for the elimination of FGM (2003) took the position that all performance of FGM should be illegal and that consent is irrelevant, especially according to article 13 “the age of a girl or woman or her consent to undergoing FGM should not, under any conditions, affect the criminality of the act”. Lecture 8 Today’s topics are devoted to analyzing the critic of values underpinning HRs. Today we will conclude the analysis of our ethical toolbox and its components. Overview First of all, we will analyze the critics of the rights framework and secondly, we will try to reject FGM considered a practice that infringes HRs in particular the interesting case of Tanzania. As we have learned from last lecture, HRs discourse is extremely powerful and appealing. It is true that HRs issues have gained global recognition in contemporary world even though the form they assume in different societies varies. Furthermore, consider also that the establishment of numerous HRs monitoring mechanism at international and regional level points towards a worldwide acceptance by states of HRs obligations and responsibilities vis a vis individual. However, in the last lecture we have seen there are many problems in establishing and implementing HRs. Some of these difficulties are theoretical. What should count as human right? What should be prioritized? But note also that other difficulties are practical: if a human right is established then how is responsible for meeting that right? All these problems suggest a more prudent approach. We have to avoid transforming HRs in a sort of worship, they are misunderstood if seen as a secular religion, it is not a creed, it is not metaphysics. We need to sto thinking of HRs as specie of idolatries and being of Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) thinking of them as sort of common language that create the basis for collective deliberation. In this dialogical process, HRs are open to a variety of interpretation, discussions and criticism. Today we shall evaluate some basic criticism of rights framework as a whole beginning with an objection from classical utilitarianism. Critiques of the rights framework: Bentham It is generally accepted that Bentham’s critique of the French D of the rights of men and citizen 1789 constitutes one of the most influential attacks on the concept of rights ever written. Although he was originally a supporter of the French revolution, he soon became horrified at its excesses. So, Bentham dismissed the idea of HRs as “non-sense upon stilts”. Let us consider first the philosophical side of this criticism. Bentham’s most categorical and damning criticism of natural rights is the claim that they simply do not exist, he proceeds to destroy all potential ground for such proof for existence of natural rights or human rights. First of all, statement provided by Bentham is that “society can provide no evidence of these fallacious rights”. When the French declaration states that all men are born free, Bentham responds with a mused contempt: “it is clear that men are born into subjection bound to their families, their social position or even in the actual bond of slavery”. The second possible ground for natural rights analyzed by Bentham is the argument that humanity in a state of nature possesses rights that are lost or corrupted in society, but he is equally derisive about this suggestion. It is impossible, he argues, to have rights without a government or without positive law. The final possible foundation of natural rights was the idea of a social contract and he again destroys this possibility arguing that the origination of governments from contract is a pure fiction or false quote, there is no evidence for him of any society created in this way. On the contrary, “we know very well that all societies are formed by force and established by habit”. The other trend of Bentham attack is based on his political detestation of these rights (political criticism). He repeatedly asserts that natural rights are tool of anarchists and their road to revolution. Here is his argument: consider that the belief in natural rights gives rise to expectations that no government could fulfil, every government will fall short and when it does so is subject puzzled by the deceptive language of rights and motivated by their absolute romantic promise will be inspired to revolt rather than to engage in careful debate and reform. We should not be surprised of this attack to human rights, as already in lecture 4, Bentham and his utilitarian philosophy treats people as means to social end rather than as Kantian and that is why utilitarian cannot understand that doing certain things to people such as torture or killing or imprisonment on false pretext is just wrong, irrespective of the suffering it may cause. That is why for Bentham the tacit message of Declaration is this “People behold your rights! If a single article of them be violated, insurrection is not your right only, but the most sacred of your duties”. Bentham is horrified by this kind of anarchical drive. In this statement however, his target was not the Kantian claim that people are endowed with dignity and rationality and his enemy was not just the idea of right, his problem was that considering natural rights were commonly associated with French Jacobins (Robespierre and others) who had instigated the reign of terror and so a defender of natural rights run the risk of being condemned as a French sympathizer or a Jacobine or at least for him as an anarchist. Critique of the rights framework: Marx Marx opinion is in his famous book The Jewish Question, 1844: “We note the fact that the seo-called rights of man, the droits de l’homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society, i.e. the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community”. So, the alleged universal right of the abstract individual – Marx claims - in Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) reality would promote the interests of one particular social type, the possessive individual of capitalism. So, HRs would be linked to bourgeois ideology and this is particularly evident with the right of private property. Marx’s critique of the right to private property is this: “The right of man to property is the right to enjoy his possessions and dispose of the same arbitrarily without regard for other men, independent of society, the right of selfishness”. Marx understands the rights of men as both canonizing individualism and defining the capitalists and egoistic mode of production. Can a Marxist support HRs? I believe within the broad Marxist tradition, there is scope to defend and mobilize the language of HRs. Consider for instance this point: in many ways the system of capitalism underlines the entire corpus of HRs, so for a Marxist it is possible to combine campaign and struggles around specific rights issues – think for instance the right to work – and the classical struggles against capitalism. To put it another way, for Marxists embracing HRs can be part today of challenging capitalism. Critiques of the rights framework: Feminism The critique by feminism of HRs highlight the emptiness of hegemonic claim that HRs are universal. Feminists argue that the universality has not been realized in practice and that only men’s rights are protected and that women have not been included in the “human” of HRs. That is why the argument is well represented in unifying campaign slogans such as “Women rights as human rights”. Besides, consider this upsetting reality: in many societies including Western industrialized ones, domestic violence has not been regarded as an issue to report or to fight but seen as part of domestic life, regrettable part of relation between the sexes. So, what difference does it make to recognize abuses against women as HRs violation? My answer is that enables the international community to put the issue unambiguously on the table, discrimination against women violates the principle of equality of right and respect for human dignity. Consider that many violations of women’s basic HRs both occur in family and are justified by reference to culture, religion or tradition. So, recognizing women rights as HRs means looking at these institutions in a new light. The feminist critique of human rights argues that, in practice, those who hold human rights are men and not women, and that gender equality, and freedom from discrimination for women, is given a low priority in the international arena (O. Reitman). “Discrimination against women violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity” (The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, 1979). Critiques of the rights framework: Non-Western critique HRs are seen as modern form of imperialism with Western primarily countries seeking to impose their particular view of society to the rest of the world in much the same way as colonial powers in former times. We find here an argument very similar if not identical to the relativist argument against universalism (lecture 3). I think it is not so useful to insist on the suppose question of Asian and European values, there is a lot we can study from studies of values of both worlds, but they do not sustain the thesis of dichotomy. Obviously, the recognition of diversity within different cultures is extremely important especially in contemporary times since we are constantly bombarded by oversampled generalizations about Western civilization, African culture and Asian values and so on. But let’s see a couple of examples. 2011 during the Arab Spring protesters into Asia (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen) raised such slogans such as “the people want overthrow of the regime, bread, freedom, social justice and the revolution of freedom and dignity”. 2014 students in Hong Kong gathered in a public square to protest some of the Beijing governments legislative initiatives, one of their slogans was “I want genuine universal suffrage”, this raised by protesters are familiar and this familiarity is important and telling. This is familiar because the situation they are responding to is Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) familiar: a state using extensive and arbitrary power. In short, one citizen in non-Western country claiming for democracy there is no reason to suspect elitism or western manipulation or false consciousness. Let me say that not everything familiar is a sign of cultural imperialism, this is not to deny the power differentials that continues to structure the relation between the west and the east but rather to suggest that overcoming the discourse of us and them will open up more promising avenues for responding to domination. Part II We are now finally in the position to understand and argue that FGM is a human right issue. Indeed, the practice in the scheme violates at least 5 HRs: the right to be free from gender discrimination, the right to life and physical integrity, the right to health and the rights of the child. The reference is the Declaration of the rights of the child 1959: “All children shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable them to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity”. We can add also the right to be free from torture and cruel and cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment, but this is more controversial. A number of scholars argue that FGM amounts to torture however many others also quick to point out that the prerequisite of intention as inscribed in the definition of torture does not reflect the true mental state of practitioners of FGM or even parents that subject children to FGM. Besides, the rationale behind FGM is not to cause harm but to acquire acceptance in societies or meeting cultural defining obligations. Based on this, it is often argued that FGM does not constitute an act of torture, it could rather be considered as cruel in human or degrading treatment the argument goes. So, the debate at this point is open. The political will of the international community Here is an overview of the institutional international scenario. Consider UN commission on HRS first discuss the traditional practice of FGM in 1952 and consider also the goal five on gender equality is part of the global sustainable development goals compact adopted in 2015 by UN and this goal has the specific target to eliminate FGM by 2030 and this is the end FGM European network which is the European umbrella network of 19 organizations working to ensure sustainable European action to end FGM. All this and more indicates strong political will from the international community to stop this dangerous practice. Now let’s take a minute and consider in more detail this famous HRs Council Resolution 2016 on “Elimination of FGM”. In short, these are the aims and objectives: Special emphasis on education (education is crucial since it clearly challenges the negative stereotype and harmful practice that sustain FGM) Provide information and raise awareness about the harmful effects of FGM Adopt national legislation prohibiting FGM Develop comprehensive policies to combat FGM Provide assistance to victims of FGM Systematize, as appropriate, collection of data on female genital mutilation Increase technical and financial assistance for the effective implementation of policies, programs and action plans to eliminate FGM The Case of Tanzania Tanzania is one of the 28 African countries in which FGM is widely practiced and the mere effect of the practice continues despite Tanzania’s obligation under international and regional HRs treaty raises Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) the question whether Tanzania has put in place adequate constitutional and legislative measure to protect women against the practice. Consider firstly the Maputo Protocol (2005), it is the protocol to African Charter to Human and Peoples’ rights on the rights of women in Africa. Art 5 explicitly prohibits the practice of FGM and that is why it remained one of the most progressive legal instruments providing a comprehensive set of HRs for African women. It obliges states to ensure that legislative measures are in place prohibiting all forms of FGM and the medicalization thereof. States are further required to impose sanctions against perpetrators to promote awareness campaigns and to provide support to victims through health and legal judicial services. The situation of ratification by 2012: states which had signed and ratified 36, states which have signed but not ratified 18 and states did not yet sign or ratify are 3: Botswana, Egypt and Indonesia Let’s see now Tanzania legal measure against FGM. We begin with constitutional provisions. It is interesting to know that Tanzania has put in place different legal measures to protect the right of women against FGM and the constitution of Tanzania was ratified in 1977, it had been subject to 14 amendments and the last was in 2005. Tanzania in the constitution is founding on the principle of freedom, justice, fraternity and concord and more specifically for our purpose that the constitution protects the right to equality and non-discrimination in art 12. Of course, the general prohibition against discrimination alone is not enough to protect women against FGM but the constitution goes further by specifically providing for prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex and in art.14 the constitution also protects the right to life arrived under certain circumstances it is threatened by the continues practice of FGM but there are problems. First of all, consider unfortunately that the right to health, a really important right that can be used to defend women against FGM, is not provided in the Bill of Rights in Tanzania. Note that the failure of governments to incorporate this right in the constitution goes against Tanzania’s national and regional HRs obligation. There is also a second problem: Tanzania’s constitution also does not provide for the prohibition of harmful practices and this absence is again contrary to Tanzania’s national and regional commitment in terms of HRs. So, we can see that the constitution does provide protection to women against FGM however, it has failed to include some key rights that couòd be used to protect women against the practice. Let’s now move to Tanzania’s legal measures against FGM. Consider that an attempt to eradicate FGM in Tanzania through legislative measures is a recent development. In 1998 it joined 21 African countries that have outload FGM by imposing criminal sanctions and the reference is the Session 169A of the Penal Code: “Any person who, having custody, charge or care of any person under eighteen years of age, ill-treats, neglects, or abandons that person or causes FGM or carries or causes to be carried out FGM or procures that person to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or abandoned in a manner likely to cause him suffering or injury to health, including injury to, or loss of, sight or hearing, or limb or organ of the body or any mental derangement, commits the offence of cruelty to children”. The use of punitive measures is an important aspect of law that is designed to prohibit the practice of FGM however, this use of punitive measures must not be exaggerated. Let me consider at least two problems. First, we know very well punishment alone is not enough but should be accompanied by other supporting measures such as education or awareness programs that promote social change. In these measures are important to achieve public consensus to abandon FGM. There is also a second problem: the penal code that criminalizes FGM if it is performed below the age of 18 years and the problem with the legislation is that it seems to assume that anybody above this age undergoes FGM voluntarily and this is however an assumption far from reality especially for women who belong to community where the practice is strongly supported. Many women are as vulnerable as children due to social pressure and may still be subjected to the practice without their real consent and that is why for instance the law criminalizing FGM in Uganda has adopted a form prohibition of FGM even in the presence of consent from the victim. So, apart from legislative measures which are crucial in eliminating the task of FGM the key point remains for me is what I Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) said in our second lecture, societal dialogue and community empowerment. If this challenge is cultural it is the dialogical methods that can have the change to reduce both the supply and demand for FGM. From this point of view, it could be of help to consider the groundbreaking work on women’s HRS designed and promoted by Professor Karisa Cloward Southern Methodist at University, Dallas. Indeed, she examines the way communities react to transitional transnational activism and international norms promotion of violence against women and the problem for her is that some cultural customs may be so deeply internalized that violations are in fact clearly unthinkable. Individuals can change their attitude but not their behavior. So, when an individual faces conflicting international local norms she’s like to refrain herself in a particularly difficult position, being pulled into different directions at once, this is a typical ethical dilemma, even if she changes her attitude and comes to agree within international norms, this does not guarantee primary behavior change because local social pressure may overwhelm her personal preference. What can we do at this level? The answer is simple: support women and girls to reduce the costs of defection which ca be too high. This can be a fascinating job aimed at promoting women’s empowerment and fostering community-based initiatives on the importance of gender equality and I agree with Karis that it is only a bottom up societal refuse to the practice that can lead to its real criminalization. So, legislation is fundamental as seen in the case of Tanzania but without a bottom up dialogue including men, women, youths and all women, all the importance of gender equality legislation as in the case of Tanzania proved to be ineffective as Karisa demonstrated in her book When norms collide participatory deliberation drawing on HRs principle appeals to play a crucial role in bringing about this collective change and that brings us to Socrates and at the very nature of ethical inquiry and ethical participation in deliberative processes in the global realm. Appendix I would like to propose to play a simulation game available online, an educational game that makes you think hard about the world around you. This may be useful to introduce you the last topic of our course which will be devoted to the problem of poverty. Spent is an online game designed in 2011 by advertising agencies as part of partnership with Urban minsters of the Ram, North Carolina. Colin attention to poverty and educate people especially about homelessness. It is free from commercial purpose. Consider the average education is 10-15 minutes. You will see this game depicts a very realistic picture of struggle of poverty. In fact, the choices are not hypothetical, the game mirrors the lives of those homeless of unemployed. This game is time space specific because the question is What is like to be poor in the US? The value of this game goes beyond its geographical location, the obstacles and challenges that lead and perpetuate poverty are a reality to billions of people in the world. Consider this game has generated a large amount of discussion on the very real impact of severe poverty among low income workers revealing just how easy it is to find oneself in a place of struggle. Let’s see now the challenge spent this game about negotiating the reality of poverty and financial responsibility. You are a single parent with only 1000$ to lie for month and through this month you must fulfil your adult duties for instance finding a job, choose a health insurance and pick a location to live. It sounds easy but the game ends whether you run out of money for the end of the month or make it through left over. Consider it is possible to turn to Fb and ask a fried for help but ignore this part of the game because that would be too complicated to manage. Spend focuses on financial and ethical responsibility which is the ability to control money in a way that is low abiding and beneficial. Money is not the biggest aspect of the game but there are other elements that could affect it. Often, decisions that lead to more money in reserve is not necessarily the best decision when to her factors such as physical or mental health are considered. So, at the end of the game you can win with money left over but you could feel compromised because for instance you have sacrificed the well-being of your family members, your values or even your mental health and that is one of the game intentions: poverty is not only a financial issue. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Lecture 9- Global Poverty This lecture as anticipated will be about poverty with a special emphasis on hanger as major challenge. Poverty is the main cause of chronic hanger and the infers is also too hanger chaps people in poverty and that is why hanger and food insecurity, the most serious forms of extreme poverty have now become international priorities and it is not difficult to imagine why poverty is considered as an extremely compelling issue in the world today. Despite a high and growing global average income, billions of people are still condemned to life-loans severe misery. Let me say that helping poor is not a question of charity as it was considered in the old days, we should be charitable of course but at stake here, at least in the field of GE, is a question of justice. What is now important to highlight is that we will explore GE response to the injustices of poverty and hanger using our ethical toolbox and try our best to apply to tragic situations what we have been exploring over the semester. Overview After an introduction of basic concepts issues and theories related to poverty, we will consider utilitarian approach endorsed by Professor Peter Singer for the morality of foreign aid. We begin with the problem of poverty. Poverty is seen today as the world greatest problem and one that potentially poses the biggest threat to the planet future’s security and stability. Nigeria: according to a report, data shows Nigeria has over 90 million people living in poverty. Nigeria, African top oil producer, is the world’s extreme poverty capital and I believe we need to go beyond rhetoric and take a concrete measure to put an end to extreme poverty. But first we need to understand what kind of a problem is poverty? Surely, poverty is essentially an economic problem understood in economic terms. Consider that wealth is becoming even more concentrated last year – last year, 26 people owned the same as the 3.8 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity, down from 43 people the year before (Oxfam report 2019). Let me give you an example: the world’s richest man in the world, owner, Jeff Bezos owner of Amazon saw his fortune increase to 112 billion $ just 1% of his fortune is the equivalent to whole wealth budget of Ethiopia, a country of 1,5 million people. To beat poverty, we must fight inequality. Oxfam is an international confederation of at least 20 charitable organization working together with local communities in more than 90 countries in the world. Oxfam continues providing outstanding research on the global inequality crisis and its statistics are based on data from Forbes rich list and from Cridisuis* global wealth report which is the most reliable source for data on how much wealth is held by different sections of the global population. Our main focus is ethics so let’s consider poverty as a global ethics issue. Here is the question for us: why assist people living in poverty? To answer, we need to develop an ethics poverty reduction understood as crucial subfield of GE. What is then an ethics of poverty? It is the philosophical field of inquiry that focuses on principles and processes of justification employed to justify unsisting people in poverty. We will see philosophers committed in arguing people in developed countries have a vast largely responsibility in help people in developing countries. The problem is that the fulfillment of this practical duty would clearly create benefits for the global poor and impose significant costs in develop countries. That is why these lectures 9 and 10 are dedicated to justifying these clams in different ways. This vast global responsibility towards vulnerable people is not a duty of kindness but primarily a duty of justice, to avoid taking advantage of people in developing countries. Now the first issue which needs to be looked at is the problem of beliefs and ideology about poverty. In fact, the concept of poverty has many interpretations and diversity of interpretations is caused by Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) time and space factors, culture and conventions of society and philosophical views. That is why we cannot start by a shared definition of poverty we must previously discuss our common beliefs about poverty. This is important because beliefs determine political attitude which determine actions which determine results in terms of poverty reductions. Exploring this topic, Joe Feagin Professor at Texas University systematically studied multiple aspects of poverty in different social groups and he identified three main types of beliefs: individualist, structuralist and fatalistic. 1. Individualistic beliefs focus on aspects of poor persons themselves as explanation of poverty such as lack of effort, state of mind, lose morals and so on. In this case, poverty is considered poor people’s fault. 2. Structuralist beliefs focus on aspects of social and economic system in which poor people reside such as failure of society to provide enough good schools, low wages, failure of private industry to provide jobs and so on. In this case, poverty is the economic system’s fault. 3. Fatalistic beliefs focus on super individual but non-social structural factors such as sickness, physical disabilities, bad luck or karma. Poverty is considered in this case as a sort of misfortune. Blaming the poor for their poverty - as individualist do - are basically incompatible with GE concern. In fact, this is the best way to get the poor off our conscience. Consider that if the poor is guilty of indigence there must be no government relief or the poor and the argument is this: attempts to help the poor only serve to increase the incentive for immoral behavior and there is long history unfortunately for blaming the poor. Thomas Malthus(1776-1834) is certainly one of the first theorists in UK to believe that poverty is a sort of a crime. He was a clergy man and philosopher famous for the Malthusian theory of population, he believed population would always increase more rapidly than food supply which means that a proportion would always suffer from starvation and poverty. His calculations demonstrated that while food supply grew at a linear rate population tended to grow at an exponential one. Consequently, humans would eventually reproduce in such excess that they would surpass the limits of food supply and once reach this point some sort of catastrophe such as war, famine was inevitable to keep population in check. Consider he explained such rapid growth by blaming poor for being unable or unwilling to prevent their sinful desired procreate. Moreover, poverty and misery are considered for Malthus as sort of divine punishment for the lower classes that fail to restrain their sexual libido. “Natural and moral evil seem to be the instruments employed by the Deity in admonishing us to avoid any mode of conduct which is not suited to our being, and will consequently injure our happiness (…) if we multiply too fast, we die miserably of poverty and contagious diseases.” (T. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798) The solution he argued was to eliminate all types of aid more precisely, Malthus policy proposal was to eliminate poverty by eliminating the poverty and that is why Marx called him “a shameless psychopath of the ruling classes”. With all due respect to Malthus, it seems unlikely the existence of poverty could ever be justified only realism could accept such global injustice and the truth that poverty has various causes including structural ones. Today there is general agreement that the gigantic disparity and inequality is clearly unethical, and the obvious inference is that we must fight for the right to human dignity, more specifically to adequate standard of living as defined in Art. 25 on the Universal Declaration of HRs, The right to an adequate standard of living: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond control.” It can be surprising for Malthusian thinkers of course to realize that there are legal obligations to take steps to end poverty, but International law has clear requirements about what state are expected to do. The right to an adequate standard of living entails the fundamental right to be free from poverty. Sadly, the implementation of this right remains a distant dream of people living in extreme poverty and the problem is that this right is positive. Art.25 imply states must also take positive actions that all citizens enjoy an adequate standard of living but the current reality in the world is very different from this hopeful vision and that is why eradicating in poverty in all its forms and dimension as embodied in goal 1 of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development goals remains one of the greatest global challenges and a major priority for UN. That is why as global ethicists we need to take our theoretical conclusions and act upon them. Measuring poverty: the income perspective The income perspective indicates that a person is poor only if his or her income is below the country’s poverty line defined in terms of having income sufficient per specified amount of food. In 1990, the World Bank introduced the dollar international poverty line to reflect standard of absolute poverty in the world’s poorest countries. Here’s the definition: “A person is considered poor if his or her income level falls below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs. This minimum level necessary is usually called ‘poverty line’. What is necessary to satisfy basic needs varies across time and societies. Therefore, poverty lines vary in time and place, and each country uses lines which are appropriate to its level of development, societal norms and values”. To make these national lines comparable, they are converted into US $ equalizing Purchasing power over economies. The WB has updated international poverty line a number of times to reflect changes in purchasing power and inflation rates. The original US 1 $ line was updated to 0.08 in 1993, 1.5 in 2005 and in 2015 1.90. This income perspective is crucial but let me say that as global ethicists we see that the solution to the problem of poverty cannot be merely financial. To put it another way, it is unrealistic to expect economic growth alone can solve the problem of poverty. That is why we consider two alternative ways to measure poverty which are not strictly income based. Basic needs approach: this perspective is based on the idea that poverty is at the provision* of consumption and consumption is defined in terms of material requirements for minimum acceptable fulfilment of human needs including food of course but this concept of poverty as deprivation goes far beyond the lack of income. It includes for instance the need of basic health, education and other essential services that have to be provided to the community to prevent people falling into poverty, ensuring subsistence. The ease of implementation is the core strength of this approach because different bundles can be created for different regions or groups of people. So, this basic needs approach is therefore quite flexible but there is a clear weakness: while this approach provides considerable flexibility to policy makers, it is criticized for arbitrariness. Bureaucrats and experts generally decide what and how much people need assuming all have the same needs, but this is clearly questionable. The risk is essentially a paternalistic top down approach, indifferent to individuals’ preferences. Capability (or empowerment) approach suggests that poverty signifies a lack of some basic capabilities to function as an autonomous socially integrated agent. Unlike the basic needs approach which is a consumption-oriented approach, this is people-focused approach, focusing on enhancing people well-being by expending their opportunities so that they can look after themselves. That is why this model does not encourage welfare programs but Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  advocates empowerment initiatives. This approach firmly believes that people are responsible for their own life and development should offer them increasing opportunities to do so. Goods and resources and facilities are important for sure but what is ultimately important in this approach is that people have freedoms to live the kind of lives they want to live. In this bottom up approach, importance is especially given to the freedom to participate in social and political activities, expressing opinions criticizing and influencing policy and so on. Therefore, capability approach in this sense is a Socratic approach consider all aspects of human life not just material consumption side. What is poverty then? Poverty: a multidimensional phenomenon I suppose we are now in the right position to argue that poverty never results from the lack of one thing but from many factors that cluster in poor people activities. We may consider this famous Copenhagen declaration about poverty adopted at the World Summit for Social Development in 1995: “Poverty has various manifestations, including lack of income and productive resources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited or lack of access to education and other basic services; increased morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environments; and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterized by a lack of participation in decision-making and in civil, social and cultural life”. (Very important the reference to poverty as lack of participation!). Part II We shall consider now Peter Singer’s utilitarian approach to famine relief. Peter Singer is Professor of bioethics at Princeton University and is known in particular for his book Animal Liberation (1975) in which argues in favor of vegetarianism and his famous essay Famine Affluence and morality in which argues in favor of donating to the global poor and that is the paper we will analyze today. Consider that he is not an armchair philosopher but the founder of “the life you can save” a non-profit that empowers people to take action in the field against extreme poverty. What is especially relevant he is convinced there is a duty to produce famine relief and is also possible to justify this duty as a compulsory responsibility to justice. Let’s see how. Here is backstory of his famous article: “As I write this, in November 1971, people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care”. So, the starting point is a concrete experience of suffering, but the logical structure of the argument applies to all circumstances of poverty and besides consider that this paper is still widely discussed today at academic level. The background thesis The point is really simple: “The suffering and death that are occurring there now are not inevitable, not unavoidable in any fatalistic sense of term”. Bengal people according to Peter Singer are suffering but is not beyond the capacity of richer nations to give enough assistance to reduce any further suffering to very small proportions. What are the moral implications of such a situation? Singer argument has two major premises: “I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad”. It is very difficult or perhaps impossible to refuse such a position. We can consider this assumption as generally accepted. “My next point is this: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”. By “without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance” Singer means without causing anything else comparatively moral bad to happen. This principle called comparable moral significance principleseems uncontroversial. Indeed, it requires only to prevent what Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  is bad and to promote what is good. This is a clear utilitarian element of Singer’s argument: more goodness is understood in terms of maximizing (remember Bentham) social utility or as the maximal reduction of suffering for the greatest number of people involved. To illustrate logic of this second principle, Singer uses a famous experiment called the drowning child thought experiment (video version of this): “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.” So, Singer suggests the following conclusion: just as there is a duty to rescue the child, there is a duty to relief famine, poverty and inequality. We have finally come to the conclusion of Singer’s argument: “When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look “well-dressed” we are not providing for any important need. We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes and give money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm”. One possible objection might be simply that it is too drastic of our moral scheme, people generally do not ordinarily judge in the way Singer has suggested they do. Most people do not condemn those who endure in luxury instead to give to famine relief. Note that the conclusion follows logically form the comparable moral significance principle. So, unless that principle is rejected, the conclusion must hold however strange it might appeal. The problem for his is that most people are self-interested to some degree and very few of us are likely to do everything we ought to do it is true therefore his conclusion remains strange because it is contrary to contemporary Western moral standards but would not seem so extraordinary at other times and in other places. As proof of that, consider that Peter Singer quotes from a writer not normally thought as a way out radical Thomas Aquinas one of the most Christian theologians of Middle Ages. Here’s the quotation: “Now, according to the natural order instituted by divine providence, material goods are provided for the satisfaction of human needs. Therefore, the division and appropriation of poverty, which proceeds from human law, must not hinder the satisfaction of man’s necessity from such goods. Equally, whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance.” (T. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 7). Superfluous things are held in common and therefore, for Aquinas and Singer should be disposed for the common benefit of the poor and that is a strict duty of justed* owed by the rich to the poor that in extreme cases of need can claim and take as a right to ownership. Singer’s argument brings to two main consequences: 1. Proximity or distance are morally insignificant: there is no justification for discriminating on geographical grounds, there is no moral difference between near and far away and this appeals to the universal moral principle of utilitarianism, those of impartiality and equality: everybody to count for one, nobody for more than one. 2. The number of people who could perform the saving action is morally insignificant: consider that Singer resists to the idea that a person duty to help another person is lessened if there are millions of others that could help. Considering again the drowning child experiment, the question is should I consider that I am less obliged to put the put out the drowning child if looking around I see other people no furthered away that I am who have also noticed the child but are doing nothing? One has only this question to see the absurdity that numbers lessen obligation. This view is clearly an excuse for inactivity. The final idea for Singer is this, most of measures evils (poverty, hanger, pollution, over population, starvation) are problems in which everyone is almost equally involved and that is why for him we need to take action (very strong argument). Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Lecture 10 It is time to conclude our philosophical investigation in the field of GE. Overview Firstly, we will consider a Kantian argument for helping the poor developed by Professor O’Neill and what we see is that he addresses world hanger from a very different angle with respect to Singer although they come to very similar conclusions. Secondly, we will study a third approach based on cosmopolitanism developed by Professor Pogge. O’Neil Kantian approach O’Neill as written widely on political philosophy and ethics, international justice and philosophy of Kant, we will focus especially on this paper titled “Rights, Obligations and world hanger” (1987) which is available online. O’Neill starting point is the terrifying statistics about world hanger and inequality. Her point is that simply knowing the facts is not enough, we could list the facts of poverty, famine and hanger in world endlessly but facts alone do not tell us what to do, what truly matters is action, but here we meet a problem: which action we advocate depends partly on our perception of the facts (important of beliefs and ideology) and this depends partly on particular ethical outlook we adopt. Both our perception of problems and proscription of action reflect our ethical theory. O’Neill second move is a strong critique of Singer’s approach. We know very well that for utilitarian all ethical requirements are a matter of beneficence to others, specifically the action is right (remember Bentham also Singer) if it produces good results and goodness of results should be assessed by their contribution to total human happiness but we have at least two problems according to O’Neill: 1. Some food aid policies have actually harmed those whom they were intended to benefit or to benefit those who are not in the first place the poorest. For instance, consider that encouraging farmers to grow cash crops (grown for sale to return a profit) has damaged the livelihood of subsistence of farmers and harm the poorest in developing countries. 2. The benefit of aid is often diverted to those who are not in the greatest need. Here the problem is that of ubiquity or corruption especially relevant in Africa. What is then a possible alternative? One alternative to utilitarian is as we all know HRs model but for O’Neill subscribe rights to impoverish people who have no power to enforce these rights is meaningless and more importantly, practically ineffective. That is why he suggests looking first at obligations: “When we talk about obligations, we are speaking directly to those agents and agencies with the power to produce or refuse changes”. The point is simple: the first concern of an ethical theory that focuses on action should be obligations rather than rights, the primary focus of obligations that the better off nations and institutions, especially international, have to the worst off. Note this is a novelty Kantian approach. In short, it puts the burden not on poor to demand rights but to the rich that have duty to address poverty. You can find the same position in Ghandi’s approach to poverty and politics, indeed he also emphasized duty of rights in the attempt to achieve the wealth of all. The true source of rights Ghandi argues is duty: if we all discharge our duty rights will not be far to seek. This approach has a clear advantage, it is operational to concrete dilemmas primarily concerned with identifying the duty bearers, responsible for protecting HRs. What obligations of justice are there? O’Neill uses Kant’s ethics to argue for some obligations towards those who are hangry and in general who are suffering. Remember here what we said approach Kant especially about the first formulation of the categorical imperative: act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Kant uses the categorical imperative to work out what is Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) morally right and tell us what should be done and a key point to his method is the requirement that actions are universalizable. That practice must be something one could rationally whish that all people can do. Each of our acts according to Kant reflects one or more maxims and the maxim of an act is the principle according to which one sees oneself as acting. So, we can say a maxim expresses a person’s policy, the principle underlined the particular intention or decision he or she acts. The question in Kantian terms becomes the following: do we have a duty to help those who are in need? More precisely, ca this altruistic maxim be a universal law? Remember that universal law means everyone would follow this law and should behave the same in the same situation, it is therefore an objective maxim “written in stone”. We can ask the opposite question: can the egoistic maxim be a universal law? Let’s do now the categorical imperative test. If the egoistic maxim fails the universalize ability test, it is forbidden. Suppose now we are selfish. 1. The first step is formulating the maxim “I will not help others”. 2. Universalize (or try to) the maxim into a universal law: “No one ever helps anyone else”. 3. Imagine trying to will your maxim in such a world: “What would the world be like if no one ever helped anyone else?” 4. Contradiction step. “Is there a contradiction that follows when you imagine trying to will your maxim in a world in which your maxim is a universally followed law?” Of course, there is a contradiction: firstly, you will a world in which no one ever could help anyone else but everyman who finds himself in need wishes to be helped by other men. So, we can say by willing such a world you make it so that you are the cause of your being unable to get help that you want when you find yourself in need. Given that the egoistic maxim fails the categorical imperative test, we can conclude therefore with Kant there is a moral duty to be beneficent. Here’s the formulation: “to be beneficent, that is to promote according to one’s means the happiness of others in need, without hoping for something in return, is every man’s duty” (The Metaphysics of Morals, 1797à the duty of beneficence). Let me briefly highlight two main points: “according to one’s means”, there is no duty to sacrifice your happiness for promoting others’ happiness, the measure is according to oneself. Secondly, “without hoping for something in return”, for Kant the requirement is that genuine authentic beneficence is no selfish in the sense to be a person predisposed to help others out of calculated self-interest does not satisfy the relevant duty. Let’s finally ask ourselves: what does Kantian beneficence mean in times of famine and starvation? The maxim of beneficence formulated by O’Neill: “Do not use others as mere means but develop or promote others’ ends and, in particular, foster others’ capacities to pursue ends, to be autonomous beings”. (Here remember the second formulation of the categorical imperative). The mean of this maxim can be incapsulated also by a famous Chinese proverb: if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day but if you teach him to fish you feed for a lifetime. This maxim is particular needed in the parts of the world in which extreme poverty and hanger leave people unable to pursue any of their hands, from this Kantian point of view we can finally argue all forms of corruption that deceive or put pressure on poor people are wrong. Such as actions like holding an allocated food, diverting relief supply for private use, use one’s influence to others disadvantage. Note that such Kantian requirements in times of famine are far from trivial and frequently violated in hard times. Consider in severe famines refraining from deceiving may risk one’s own life and requires the greatest scorch*. Following Kant, we have seen O’Neill addresses world hanger from a very different angle to Singer although he comes to very similar conclusion and the difference is the following (remember that utilitarianism generates duty from empirical economic considerations whereas Kant’s rational ethics forbids such consideration, Kant believed some actions are in themselves right or wrong not because of their consequences): Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])  For Singer, benevolence, as a duty, derives its rightness from consequences involved with it; (remember here the requirement associated with the comparable moral significance principle) For O’Neill, our duty to aid is based on the respect I ought to have for the person’s humanity, which has intrinsic worth independently and irrespective of empirical economic considerations such as cost-benefit calculation. Part II Let’s move now to Pogge’s negative rights approach to the poor. Pogge is a German philosopher, professor of international affairs at Yale university. We have looked at Singer’s utilitarian argument, for Singer we have a moral duty to help poor if we are in the position to do so and we have looked at Kantian O’Neill’s approach that we have an obligation to assist the poor to foster their autonomy. Both views involve positive duties to do something, not negative duties not to harm. Think back to lecture 7 at the distinction among positive (require others to act if they are not be met) and negative rights (non-interference, the right to be left alone for instance). So, a whole negative characterization of our duty to the poor would be limited in requiring us to avoid causing or exacerbating poverty, avoid causing harms by our actions and that is exactly of Pogge’s argument: to fail to help the global poor, is to violate a negative moral duty. Pogge begins like Singer and O’Neill by outlining some of the horrendous facts about world hanger and the disparity among the rich north and the poor south: “the annual death toll from poverty-related causes is around 18 million, or one- third of all human deaths, which adds up to approximately 270 million deaths since the end of the cold war”. Think now about the unthinkable: “few realize that severe poverty is an ongoing harm we inflict upon the global poor. If more of us understood the true magnitude of the problem of poverty and our causal involvement in it, we might do what is necessary to eradicate it”. The first point is to assume we are capable, world poverty is in a way the direct responsibility of richer world and the same point is argued by Nelson Mandela “poverty is not an accident, like slavery and apartheid, is manmade and can be removed by the actions of human beings”. What is the problem? It is that it is unthinkable to us that we are directly responsible for this catastrophe, the common assumption is that reducing severe poverty abroad at the expenses of our own affluence would be generous, not something we have to do and the failure to do that is a lack of generosity that does not make us morally responsible for continuous deprivation of poor. How can we justify this unthinkable thought? Here’s the argument: “we are harming the global poor if and insofar as we collaborate in imposing an unjust global institutional order upon them. And this institutional order is definitely unjust if and insofar as it foreseeably perpetuates large-scale human rights deficits that would be reasonably avoidable through feasible institutional modifications” (Pogge). Note that Pogge’s argument depends on premises that world poverty is largely brought about and sustained by richer western economies and institutions and this is crucial, very difficult to accept. Pogge focuses more on what is typically ignored: the design of global institutional order placed in the persistence of severe poverty. We know very well factors relevant to the persistence of severe poverty are not easy to find ì because the general assumption is that poverty is not cause by the international order but rather by the unstable and brutal, corrupted regimes of poorer and developing countries. Pogge rejects this claim using the case of Nigeria in 1990, in particular the case of General Sani Abacha, who was a Nigerian army officer and politician who served as the de facto president from 1993 to 1998 during which the regime loot and sent abroad 5 billion $ to Swiss banks, the greed of Abacha who ruled for 5 years after a 1993 coup, shocked even Nigerians used to plundering on a grand scale. He is believed to have stolen $4.3 bn while in office. Abacha was also notoriously brutal autocrat accused of countless human rights abuses. The problem is that the European Union and US did little for years about HRs violations under his regime apart from routinely condemning him because trade and oil interests prevailed. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Consider especially Shell, the Anglo-Dutch company, the most powerful corporation in Nigeria, reaps billions of dollars every year in profits and gives back little except for pollutants. The US imports 45% of Nigeria’s oil and Europe 40%, giving both enormous leverages. Consider also that in 2017 amnesty international has called for a criminal investigation into Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell, over its role in a swathe of horrific crimes committed by the Nigerian military government in the oil- producing Ogoniland region in the 1990s, accusation that the company has obviously denied. Consider Shell aided Nigerian military campaign to silence protesters for bringing international attention towards the pollution in the oil rich Ogoniland region. To be sure Nigerian people lose their national resources, suffer severe ecological damage and filed their tyrant strengthened by money and weapons that UK give him in exchange for oil. What can we do? Rich countries for instance could stop hiding corrupt money that flees poor countries into Western banks. One question could be: are rich countries prepared to force banks to cooperate in tracking terrorist finances? The answer is not easy. But consider in 2026 the Swiss authorities returned $321 Million and was the first times European countries gave stolen money to an African country. The money is expected to be used for social protection programs. “Nigeria and Switzerland signed a memorandum of understanding on Monday to pave the way for the return of illegally acquired assets, the west African country said. Switzerland said in December that it would return to Nigeria around $321 million in assets seized from the family of former military ruler Sani Abacha via a deal signed with the World Bank” (Reuters 2018). The question suggested by Pogge at this point is: “how can there be a moral difference between paying the General Sani Abacha – the Nigerian strongman who kept the winner of the annulled 1993 election in jail and has executed numerous political opponents – and stealing the oil outrights?”. The answer for Pogge is that there is no difference: pain signing Abacha imposes a second undue harm on poverty stricken Nigerian population. It is then clear at this point the presence of corrupt government does not absolve the international order of its responsibility of conditions that such a regime may perpetuate. The duty not to harm is incumbent on us all! A negative duty to refrain from action not to make people suffer and stop causing suffering wherever and whomever it occurs. Refraining the argument as one of negative rather than positive duties, allows Pogge to overcome three common objections that can be made against positive duty to aid poor: 1- Alleviating poverty in other countries may be a generous act but doing so is not our moral duty. By contrast, we have a negative duty to address the poverty we have caused, and this is not optional duty of charity (according to Pogge) 2- Poverty is caused by the unstable and corrupt regimes of poorer and developing countries. There is no duty for other nations to alleviate it By contrast, we recognize, trade with or interact with such regimes; so, we have a duty to stop causing suffering (Pogge) 3- We have stronger positive duties to help those nearer to us than those further away By contrast, negative duties are universal and take precedence over positive duties (Pogge) Th argument of Singer, O’Neill and Pogge shows there is a strong case for a duty to aid poor very with different perspectives, but they end to very similar conclusions. All ethical theories argue poverty is wrong and remember what Mandela stated “overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice” and sometimes it falls on a generation to be great, for Mandela “you can be that great generation, led your greatness blossom”. Our task is to attempt to engage not only on theoretical debate but about what are the appropriate policies, practices needed to address poverty. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Let’s finish by quoting Ghandi and peaceful persuasion. Ghandi was not only a man of thought but also an activist whole one of the greatest anti-colonial struggles and for him, human beings waste the potential and deprives their lives of all sense of meaning and purpose. For him, poverty is bad as killing and even worse for the fact it is silent, slow and invisible. His requirement was clear “It is my obligation and my responsibility to strive to empower the poor and vulnerable” and this idea was expressed in what has come to view ad Ghandi’s amulet or a lucky char written in August 1947, the year India obtained independence and five months Ghandi’s assassination. Here Ghandi emphasized the priority that should be given to care for the poor and this general bias towards vulnerable is our first lecture at the core of GE commitment. “Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man (woman) whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him (her). Will he (she) gain anything by it? Will it restore him (her) to a control over his (her) own life and destiny? Then you will find your doubts and you melt away”. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/global-ethics-notes-course-of-global-ethics-and-restorative-justice/5842338/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])