The 25th Article of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights declares each human being as having the right to “a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,” which comprises of food, clothing, housing and medical care amongst others (UN General Assembly, 1948). For over 767 million people today, or a tenth of the world’s population located primarily in the Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, those rights are being taken away, further undermining the ability to pursue other basic civil and political rights as a consequence.
For long, the eradication of global poverty has been at the forefront of political discussion amongst the political philosophers and cosmopolitan internationalists of the developed nations. The gap between the rich and the poor in wealthy and yet rapidly growing societies such as the United States, Brazil or China has widened immensely in the aftermath of the global economic recession of 2008. Although the socialist revolutionary ideas portrayed in Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in 2016 escalated populous grievances about the growing economic inequality and political lobbying, the policies of the wealthy nations fail to address the scale of global poverty within their foreign policy agenda.
There are numerous reasons why the West should take responsibility for global poverty. Perhaps the most influential and challenging political philosopher on global justice and human rights, Thomas Pogge, believes that wealthy societies are to be held responsible for the global poverty due to shared history, resources and global economic order.
While I agree with Thomas Pogge’s arguments that wealthy societies are to blame for the expanding global inequality and thus ought to be responsible for restoring equality, the nature of political development and social relations within each individual developing country, I believe, shall be taken into thorough consideration whilst eradicating poverty through grassroots decision-making.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to Global Poverty and Human Rights
2. Thomas Pogge’s Arguments on Global Justice
3. Critiques of Cosmopolitan Duties
3.1 John Rawls and Distributive Justice
3.2 David Miller on Outcome and Remedial Responsibility
4. Regional Perspectives and Domestic Factors
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
The essay critically examines Thomas Pogge’s assertion that wealthy nations bear moral responsibility for global poverty due to their role in shaping the current international economic order, while contrasting this view with alternative theories on distributive justice and state responsibility.
- Analysis of the relationship between global economic structures and systemic poverty.
- Evaluation of "positive" versus "negative" duties in international relations.
- Discussion of the critiques posed by John Rawls and David Miller regarding state responsibility.
- Examination of the role of domestic factors and regional development in the Global South.
- Review of the impact of humanitarian interventions and foreign policy on developing nations.
Excerpt from the Book
Thomas Pogge’s Arguments on Global Justice
Perhaps the most influential and challenging political philosophers on global justice and human rights, Thomas Pogge, believes that wealthy societies are to be hold responsible for the global poverty due to shared history, resources and global economic order. For Pogge, global poverty is a moral obligation for the West to take responsibility for the ‘grievous wrongs’, such as the Holocaust in Europe, slavery in the United States and the vast history of colonialism in the Global South. Such historical injustices play a role in explaining both the poverty of developing nations and the affluence of the rich countries alike (Pogge, 2001, p. 15). To extend the argument he introduces the so-called ‘explanatory nationalism’ which claims that passive Germans under the Nazi regime were as much responsible for Holocaust as the citizens of the United States, who support the current international system, for one-fourth of the world’s population living in abject poverty today (Carnegie Council, 2012).
To prove his argument, Pogge distinguishes two distinct duties that wealthy nations have in order to assist the developing states. The so-called ‘positive duty’ to assist or protect a less developed state, or those in need, with little cost to oneself thus controversially characterized cosmopolitan interventionist ideology of the West. In order to prevent any possible violations of human rights for smaller benefits at greater cost, Western hypocrisy celebrates humanitarian interventions and peacekeeping missions in the conflict zones thus further endangering and alienating populations of those countries and contributing to their bad governance by direct violence or arms exports (Pogge, 2001, p. 7).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction to Global Poverty and Human Rights: Provides the statistical context of global poverty and introduces the debate regarding the moral duties of wealthy nations.
2. Thomas Pogge’s Arguments on Global Justice: Explores the philosophical framework of Thomas Pogge, focusing on historical injustices and the distinction between positive and negative duties.
3. Critiques of Cosmopolitan Duties: Analyzes the theoretical opposition to Pogge's cosmopolitan perspective.
3.1 John Rawls and Distributive Justice: Details Rawls’s argument that poverty origins are tied to internal political culture and the "difference principle".
3.2 David Miller on Outcome and Remedial Responsibility: Examines Miller’s critique of the "drowning child" analogy and his emphasis on distinguishing between different types of state responsibility.
4. Regional Perspectives and Domestic Factors: Discusses the impact of geography, internal governance, and regional cooperation on development, challenging overly simplified global narratives.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the essay's findings, arguing that a nuanced approach is required to address poverty without ignoring local agency or democratic plurality.
Keywords
Global poverty, Thomas Pogge, human rights, distributive justice, cosmopolitanism, John Rawls, David Miller, inequality, global economic order, remedial responsibility, humanitarian intervention, developing nations, political culture, colonialism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this academic paper?
The paper evaluates whether wealthy societies and their governments are morally responsible for global poverty, specifically focusing on the arguments presented by political philosopher Thomas Pogge.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The themes include the ethics of global justice, the role of international economic systems, the distinction between positive and negative duties, and critiques of western-led humanitarianism.
What is the central research question?
The essay explores whether one can agree with Thomas Pogge's argument that the West is responsible for global poverty due to shared history and the design of the global economic order.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The work utilizes a normative political theory approach, conducting a critical literature review and comparative analysis of major thinkers like Pogge, Rawls, and Miller.
What is the focus of the main body of the text?
The main body examines Pogge’s "explanatory nationalism," critiques by Rawls regarding domestic factors, and David Miller’s theories on outcome versus remedial responsibility.
Which keywords define the scope of the work?
Key terms include global poverty, distributive justice, cosmopolitanism, and state responsibility.
How does the author view Pogge's "explanatory nationalism"?
The author presents it as a controversial yet influential framework that links citizens of wealthy nations to the systemic conditions causing poverty in the developing world.
What is the significance of the "drowning child" analogy in this text?
It is used by critics like Miller to challenge the simplicity of cosmopolitan obligations, arguing that real-world scenarios are too complex for such binary moral comparisons.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the global economic order?
The author argues that while Pogge highlights critical flaws in the current international order, his approach is arguably Eurocentric and overlooks the importance of regional agency in the Global South.
- Quote paper
- Ignas Rekasius (Author), 2016, Global Poverty - a responsibility of the West? A look at Thomas Pogge's argument, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/351026
