1. Global Economic Justice

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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Taxation
Source: Federal Reserve (2005)

10. Source: Federal Reserve (2007)

11. 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):

12. 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 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

13. 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?