Global Economic Justice

Justice Right/Wrong Obligatory/Prohibited/Permissible Just/Unjust Chief Justice /Justice System

Kinds of Justice Restorative (Corrective) justice Retributive justice A betrayed person may seek justice from the betrayer is some form. Restitution, putting things back as they should be. (e.g.. Apology, financial settlement) Retributive justice Restoration may well not be enough for the betrayed person and they may seek revenge of some sort, whereby they can feel the satisfaction of seeing the other person suffer in the way that they have suffered. (e.g. revenge for a murdered relative, capital punishment)

Global Economic Justice Distributive Justice: fair/unfair distribution of society's goods (income, welfare, aid, etc.) Individual Level: Do we as individuals owe anything to distant others, especially those who are suffering from malnutrition, disease, fear of death? Social Level: What social system is best for the distribution of wealth? Global Economic Justice lies at the intersection of economics, political philosophy, and ethics

Common Sense View Do we have an obligation to give to charity? N Is it good to give to others? Yes. So, giving to others is superogatory Are economic disparities in the US/World unjust? Y Does the government have the right to tax you and then spend money on foreign aid? Yes/No/To some extent If Yes/some extent, then there is direct tension with saying that giving to other is superogatory ( it is permitted but not obligatory) Taxes are ways of forcing the citizens to give up income, but that is not in keeping with there being no obligations to give money to others

General Problem Any form of redistribution is going to infringe on individual freedoms (e.g. tax on individual income – forced system to give up money); you cannot opt-out On the other hand, 1. there is abject poverty across the world (wealth distribution is incredibly lopsided) 2. it seems unfair (to some) that someone who is born into poverty has far fewer opportunities (and possibilities for success, acquisition of wealth, etc) than someone who is born into wealth

Egalitarian Theories – justice requires equal distribution of goods among persons Libertarian Theories - justice require individual liberties – negative rights – obligations not to interfere with person’s doing something

Political Landscappe Left (equality distribution of wealth) – e.g. socialism (Neilsen) Middle (mixture equality and freedom) – e.g. liberalism (Rawls) Right (freedom) – free-market capitalism - e.g. libertarianism (Nozick) Utilitarianism – could fall on either left, middle or right

Taxation Source: Federal Reserve (2005)

Source: Federal Reserve (2007)

Global Economic Facts – Wealth Distribution 1.4 billion people live in extreme poverty - under $2.50 US a day (purchasing power) At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day (purchasing power) 20 percent of the world consumed 75 percent of its goods Richest 1% owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and the richest 10% accounted for 85% of the world total assets. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth Source: United Nations – World Institute for Development Economics Research (2006): http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3jv048hx http://www.wider.unu.edu/events/past-events/2006-events/en_GB/05-12-2006/

Consequences Every year six million children die from malnutrition before their fifth birthday More than 800 million (2.5 X the population of the US) people go to bed hungry every day...300 million are children Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names Source: 1-2 Millenium Project (United Nations), 3 (Unicef), 4-5 World Bank

Analogy Child drowning in a pool If Jimmy is walking past a shallow pond, and he sees a child drowning, he considers two options Save the child: Cost: Muddy Clothing; Benefit: Saving someone’s life Don’t save child: Cost: child drowns; Benefit: Clothes remain clean Everyone would say that the trivial benefit should not outweigh the importance of the child’s life So, Jimmy has an obligation to save the child – it is not just superogatory; he would be considered a moral monster if he had such a lack of concern for human life Now, consider the millions of people that are in equally dire situations across the world Each person in the western world can donate money to charity that would quite literally in many cases save the life of a person; yet we don’t. We choose to spend money or more trivial things. So how are we different from the person who walks by the pond and lets the child drown Do you still think that giving to others is merely superogatory?