Do we owe the global poor assistance or rectification? Assess the debate between Pogge and Risse. Essay Example
7Do we owe the global poor assistance or rectification? Assess the debate between Pogge and Risse.
Do we owe the global poor assistance or rectification? Assess the debate between Pogge and Risse.
Aid is said to have been in existence since time immemorial, but more recently aid was seen to be more intense after the Second World War that was under the purview of the budgets of those colonial budgets in the beginning of the nineteenth century. From the historical books, the aid was basically used for European reconstruction to the countries colonised, it was also seen as a mode of decolonization and cold war too in the rivalry as a mode of influence to the third world countries which was seen to be a major activity than in today’s perspective. Aid can therefore be given kin the form financial grants or even loans and materials, labour and even expertise which is in most occasions characterised by a lot of promises accompanied by delay in the fulfilment of the promises. Development aid in most occasions it is given to the developing countries by developing countries with an aim of development in general which is either economic development or social development in those particular countries. This kind of aid is different from humanitarian in that the humanitarian aid is basically meant for the alleviation of human suffering while the development is meant for long term poverty alleviation strategy. The development aid is usually given by governments to the individual governments, international aid agencies and also through multilateral institutions like the World Bank and also through individuals through development charities like the action aid, the care international, caritas and Oxfam. Most scholars have interpreted this development aid from the context of the cold war (Carrens, 1992, P. 26).
According to Martin Risse, he asserts that the global order doesn’t hurt the poor persons but should be seen as an aspect that improves the lives of the human beings in the developing countries. Global order in this context can be therefore be seen as a political philosophy that do arise from the concerns that people don’t live in a just world where as many people seem extremely poor while on the other side some are extremely rich. It describes most of the population to be living in the tyrannical regimes that are vulnerable to violence, starvation and the diseases as some die prematurely. Based on his arguments, Risse adds that recently developing countries are seen to be better off than before due to the aid interventions. This is revealed through the increase in the per capita income of third world countries between the years of the 1960 and the year 2000 where the per capita average was seen to raise e by 2.3 percent which has on the hand doubled the living standards of the populations from those particular states (Risse, 2005, p. 9).
In Marxist thinking about the neo-classical dependence, his thinking shows the presence and the continuance of the underdevelopment between the two personalities who in this context are the poor and the rich countries that are strongly linked to the unequal capitalists during the historical evolution. This system shows that rich countries are classified by too much levels of exploitativeness internationally which is also dominated by the unequal powers in the relationships between this two countries, the poor states and the rich states. This has been seen to e among the major attributes that make it hard for the poor countries to get developed. The circumstances are manipulated by power groups that do enjoy most of the incomes of the country, the political power, the social status and this therefore makes them constitute a ruling class that operates on the perpetuation of the international capitalist system of inequality that they are rewarded for thus concluding that most of the underdevelopments in some particular states is an induced phenomenon that is done externally.
On the other hand, his counterpart Thomas Nagel bases his argument on the practical global justice limitations in around Rawls “veil of ignorance”. From the summary of this thinking, it is thought that some countries have only limited themselves to humanitarian obligations and not thinking of countries that are well less off. According to his explanation, the lucky ones that happened to be born in rich families and national circumstances need not to share what they have with others (Rawls, 1999). He adds that even if one didn’t deserve to benefit from his superior talents implies that neither others will benefit from whatever he has. In his data analysis based on redistribution, 46 percent of the world population do live below the World Bank’s s2/day poverty line. Now in this case if the world in distribution of wealth and other goods, then this couldn’t be happening. This therefore indicates the source of poverty and the existence of the systematic injustices in the world economy that need to be justified. He also adds that the rich do have a great obligation in helping the poor where aid shouldn’t be a matter of charity but something admirable to meet the basic human needs in a way that will satisfy the human life till they are no longer classified with a bigger gap between the rich and the poor (Rawls, 1999. P. 65).
Nagel reiterates that some citizens have greater and stricter obligations to themselves and each other than they may owe to a stranger from another corner of the earth. If in any case people were bound together according to Rawl and Nagel, this would have strengthened the obligation between them making it meaningless to argue for the global justice. Despite this, Nagel i said not to have seen the need for the establishment of unity or coerciveness as he is seen to describe, as assumed by the sovereign state that the state of inequality brings about gaps in the solidarity of the nation that the supporting states may wish o built. Nagel therefore misses to recognize this option as he is glued to the idea that only the sovereign state may have a solution to the development of the third world states. An argument also arises where Nagel is corrected for wrongly coming up with an assumption that people cannot gain on social cooperation if there is no establishment of egalitarian social bonds (Nagel, 2005, p. 93).
.Björkman & Pontus 2010, 29)According to Pogge and Nagel, there are identifiable limitations seen towards global justice and amongst them is the principle of distributive justice that is designed for allocation of resources in limited supply that is relative to the demand. Although this was put in place, the world today isn’t based on the rule or adopting the principle of distributive justice. Statistics show that most of the parts of the world has changed but this isn’t significant at all for there are still more places where people are still going hungry. This unequal distribution of resources is on earth particularly in poor countries and more so on an African soil, while this is happening on African continent, some are busy extracting natural resources from the same place where the owners are living hungry. This is therefore done at the expense of the poor man in a third world country and other people’s ability to get rich. In most occasions, mining is done large scale plantations destroy nature as the poor small farmers are driven out of the farms while the indigenous settle. Based on the realism principle, global justice in this context is not going together at all (
. Caney & Simon, 2001. P. 974)Cosmopolitanism on the other hand argue that all humans and not only fellow citizens are the only ones that do fall within the scope of justice, this is base on facts that the morals standings of the individuals are usually based on by some morals significant characters. This character are therefore said to be shared by the entire humans and not only by members of the state, certain culture or the nation. Hence, all the people have moral standings whereby the boundaries between these cultures, nations and the states are absolutely irrelevant. The difference in cosmopolitans is what brings the significance of the moral characteristic. Pogge and Caney argue that all the humans have the right in particular those set by the UNs universal declaration on Human Rights which are seen to create room for positive responsibility of the rich to give they are obligated to which include security, livelihood and so many others. Therefore based on this principle, the rich are hence violating their negative obligation not to impose the global order that systematically violates rights of the poor around the globe (
. Pogge, 2002. P. 49)David Miller and Yael Tamir who are nationalists also argue that the demands for mutual obligahtion are created by a particular kind of valuable association. They assert that though there could be world humanitarian services that they may aid, these should be of much less touching than those for their own people or citizens (
.Nagel, 2005. P. 113)In conclusion, the assertion of Pogge and Risse imply a satisfying discussion on the current world order where by the realists do complain that the states that pursue the utopian vision of moral vision through the intervention and humanitarian aid rather than focusing on their interests do harm their subjects destabilise the adopted international system. Nationalists on the other hand deplore the fact that many people live under in efficient regimes that are ruthless to humanity. They are therefore concerned about the rogue nations and the powerful imperialists in these particular states. Lastly, the cosmopolitans have a belief that the global world has filed live up to their set codes and if that is to be done, then the wealthy will have to make considerable changes. This may include transferring their wealth to the poor states to bring them to a smaller gap (
http://globalrattvisa.nu/, access: 2010-01-24,Kampanjen Global Rattvisa NuBjörkman, Pontus (2010)
49: p.974-997Political StudiesCaney, Simon (2001) Review Article: International Distributive Justice,
Harvester Wheatsheaf, Free MovementCarens, Joseph H (1992) Migration and Morality,
15, no. 2: p.394–408International SociologyHeld, David (2000) Regulating Globalization? The Reinvention of Politics,
33, no. 2: p.113-147Philosophy & Public AffairsNagel, Thomas (2005) The Problem of Global Justice,
Cambridge: Polity Press,World Poverty and Human RightsPogge, Thomas (2002)
(revised edition), Harvards University pressA Theory of JusticeRawls, John (1999)
More Important Things