Poverty, Affluence, and Derivative

DutiesBy: Taylor Rodrigues

St Andrews’s 2014 Philosophy Honors Reading Party

Talk Structure

1. The state of global poverty2. Peter Singer’s non-derivative positive duty approach 3. Thomas Pogge’s derivative positive duty approach4. Objections to Thomas Pogge

1. Harm or unjust harm?2. Moral time limits

5. Questions

Global Income Distribution1.30%

17.70%

81.00%

The poorest 44%The middle 40%The richest 16%

Source: Chen and Ravallion, 2004

The Facts About Global Poverty

• 2.7bn+ live below the severe poverty line (US$2/day) • (Chen and Ravallion, 2004)

• 18m die every year from poverty-related causes • (WHO 2004)

• 865m are chronically malnourished • (FAO 2012 report)

• 2.6bn lack basic sanitation • (WHO 2014)

• 780m lack access so safe drinking water • (WHO/UNICEF 2012)

The Facts About Global Aid• The UN’s target for development aid is 0.7% of GDP• Only 4 countries meet this target (Sweden 0.99%, Norway

0.88%, Denmark 0.82% and Netherlands 0.80%)• The UK government gives 0.48% and the USA gives 0.19%• USA spends 4.2% of their GDP ($600bn+) on their military• Citizens of Scandinavian countries donate the most to foreign

aid privately (Sweden 0.5%, Denmark 0.48%, Netherlands 0.45% and Norway 0.4%)

• Citizens of the rest of the developed world donate far less • Severe poverty would be eradicated if the richest 16%

donated 0.7-2% of their income to the severely poor Source: World Bank 2012, Development Assistance Committee

Ethical Duties

Ethical Duties

Positive Duties

Non-Derivative Derivative

Negative Duties

The Non-Derivative Approach• Many philosophers believe that the global rich ought to do

more to help the global poor • Traditionally many philosophers have supported this claim by

appealing to non-derivative positive duties • E.g Henry Shue, Onora O’Neill and Peter Singer

• In 1972 Peter Singer published “Famine, Affluence and Morality” • The purpose of his article is to establish that the global rich have

duties of justice to help the poor. • Donating to the global poor is not a matter of beneficence or

supererogation

Some Preliminary Cases

• The pond: You can save a young child from drowning in a

muddy pond at the expense of ruining your clothes

• The Sedan: You can save a hiker’s leg at expense of ruining the

new upholstery in your car.

Singer’s Initial Argument• P1: “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”

• P2: Deaths from drowning and the loss of limbs are bad.• P3: It is within our power to prevent the child from dying or

the hiker from losing their leg without sacrificing anything of (comparable) moral significance.

• C: We ought to save the child from drowning and the hiker’s limb

*Singer’s argument can be made stronger by reading in the “(comparable)”

The Global Poverty Argument• P1: “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”

• P2: Deaths and suffering from severe poverty are bad. • P3: It is within the global rich’s power to prevent (most) deaths

and suffering caused by severe poverty without sacrificing anything of (comparable) moral significance.

• C: The global rich ought to prevent (most) death and suffering caused by severe poverty.

*Singer’s argument can be made stronger by reading in the “(comparable)”

Clarifications• What it of comparable moral significance to reducing severe

poverty?• Something of equal or greater goodness (e.g. education)• Something of equal or greater badness (e.g. more death and suffering)• Something inherently wrong (e.g. gross human rights violations)

• Physical distance makes no direct moral difference • We should accept a principle of impartiality/equality

• We must give until the point of marginal utility: the point “at which by giving more one would cause oneself and one’s dependents as much suffering as one would prevent”

• Singer sees no reason to prefer the moderate argument

The Libertarian Objection• Opponents of foreign aid often oppose it on libertarian

grounds• Libertarians deny that any non-derivative positives duties are

duties of justice • E.g. they do not accept Singer’s P1

• Are proponents of foreign aid caught in an intractable disagreement with the opponents of foreign aid?

Libertarian Ethics• The non-aggression principle (NAP): aggression in inherently

illegitimate • Aggression includes threats and acts that interfere with a

person’s rights • From the NAP libertarians derive that acts like assault, theft,

arbitrary detention, and fraud are immoral• The NAP does not rule out self-defence• Derivative positive duties of justice can be derived from the NAP

(e.g. duties of rectification)

Thomas Pogge’s Argument• P1: All individuals have a duty “not cooperate in the

imposition of a coercive institutional order that foreseeably and avoidable leaves human rights unfulfilled without making reasonable efforts to aid its victims and to promote institutional reform”

• P2: Most of the global rich are cooperating in the imposition of a coercive institutional order that foreseeably and avoidably leaves human rights unfulfilled without making a reasonable efforts to aid its victims and to promote institutional reform.

• C: The global rich should cease cooperating in the imposition of a coercive institutional order that foreseeably and avoidably leaves human rights unfulfilled or start making reasonable efforts to aid its victims and to promote institutional reform.

Defence of P2• Pogge argues that the global institutional order (GIO) is

causally responsible for most severe poverty• The GIO consists of global institutions (e.g. WTO, IMF, etc.) and

the international legal system• He believes the GIO is intentionally set up to benefit

developed country citizens and the affluent elite in poor countries

• The GIO is not even procedurally fair to poor countries • WTO negotiations allow developed countries to put high tariffs on

developing countries’ goods they deem ‘unfairly cheap’ yet restrict developing countries from putting any tariffs on developed world goods

Further Defence of P2• The international legal system extends resource and

borrowing privileges to whoever has ‘effective power’ over a country

• Rich countries allow domestic firms to tax deduct bribes paid in poor countries

• The GIO allows firms from developed countries not to pay for negative externalities (e.g. pollution and dumping)

• Rich countries allow their firms to sell arms to abusive regimes• Rich countries accumulated much of their wealth through a

violent history (e.g. colonialism and resource exploitation) • Global international property laws deny millions life saving

medication

Clarifications• The GIO foreseeably gives rise to a human rights deficit

because reasonable agents can predict it will • The GIO avoidably gives rise to a human rights deficit because

there is a feasible comparable GIO that would not produce as large of a humans rights deficit

• Pogge claims that we all have a human right not to be deprived of the basic goods necessary to live a flourishing human life–and the GIO violates this right

• What are “reasonable efforts reasonable efforts to aid the victims of the GIO and to promote institutional reform?”• Donate ~1% of gross income to severe poverty alleviation + vote

for political parties that want to reform the GIO + ???

Singer vs Pogge• The derivative positive duty approach is superior to non-

derivative positive duty approach to human poverty 1. Approaches like Pogge can convince libertarians but

approaches like Singer cannot 2. All else being equal we are more strongly motivated by

negative duties and derivative positive duties than non-derivative duties

Tan’s Objection to Pogge• Kok-Chor Tan: The GIO harms the poor but not unjustly so • Pogge’s claim that the rich harm the poor by forcing a

particular GIO on them presupposes that the poor would be better off it the rich do not force any GIO on them

• “The problem of global poverty is not that of the rich getting in the way but of that of the rich refusing to cooperate with the poor in certain ways” (e.g. unfair trade terms)

• Pogge can either (1) invoke non-derivative positive duties to prove the rich are harming the poor or (2) he can only make the minimal claim that the rich only need to be procedurally fair to the poor

• If he makes (1) he loses the libertarian, if he takes (2) it is unlikely that most severe poverty will be extinguished

A Poggeian Response• Pogge does not claim the rich have a duty to institute a GIO

that provides basic goods to everyone or any other non-derivative positive duty to the poor

• Pogge’s P1 is a negative duty which derives a positive duty of rectification if it is violated

• The global rich have already violated the negative duty in P1. Tan is wrong to think that, ethically speaking, they are free just to cease contact with the global poor.

• The global poor are justified in demanding compensation from the global rich

• Procedural fairness does not ensure a system does not unjustly harm individuals

Does Pogge Let The Rich Off Easy?

• Pogge asserts that developed country denizens are only responsible for the effects of their participation in the recent GIO, say the last 25 years• He does not justify this claim

• Is there a need for long-term rectification? • Should the global rich be morally excused of their

contributions to the GIO if they have not rectified their contriubtions after 25 years?

• If so, why?

Moral Time Limits On Responsibility

Common law reasons:1. Persons with legitimate claims should pursue them diligently2. Defendants might lose evidence necessary to defend

themselves from old claims3. Old claims are fuelled more by cruelty than justice A pragmatic reason: if we ask people to rectify too much, they will rectify less than if we made a smaller request

Moral Time Limits On Responsibility

1. Persons with legitimate claims should pursue them diligently The global poor do not have the resources to be diligent

2. Defendants might lose evidence necessary to defend themselves from old claims

The global rich are in a much better position to preserve evidence than the global poor are to fabricate evidence 3. Old claims are fuelled more by cruelty than justice

Not these types of claims 4. If we ask people to rectify too much, they will rectify less

than if we made a smaller request Psychological motivations don’t make a moral difference

Questions