Graduate studies at Western
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (2):369-391 (2013)
|Abstract||Thomas Pogge has argued that typical citizens of affluent nations participate in an unjust global order that harms the global poor. This supports his conclusion that there are widespread negative institutional duties to reform the global order. I defend Pogge’s negative duty approach, but argue that his formulation of these duties is ambiguous between two possible readings, only one of which is properly confined to genuinely negative duties. I argue that this ambiguity leads him to shift illicitly between negative and positive duties, and ultimately to overstate the extent of the negative ones. I also argue that recognition of this ambiguity makes it possible to draw a meaningful distinction between the relevant positive and negative duties, and that Pogge’s analysis can therefore be revised in a way that reveals substantial negative institutional duties to the global poor, albeit less extensive ones than Pogge asserts. In order to demonstrate this, I discuss two aspects of the global order that Pogge has criticized: the system of intellectual property rights in pharmaceuticals and the rights of de facto rulers to dispose of a nation’s natural resources. In each case, although I do not specify the relevant negative institutional duties precisely, I try to identify intelligible questions whose answers would reveal genuinely negative duties and show that their likely answers are distinct from the conclusions asserted by Pogge and suggested by his analysis|
|Keywords||Global poverty Negative duties Harm Institutional duties Thomas Pogge|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
S. Nili (2013). Rigorist Cosmopolitanism A Kantian Alternative to Pogge. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (3):260-287.
Uwe Steinhoff (2012). Why ‘We’ Are Not Harming the Global Poor: A Critique of Pogge’s Leap From State to Individual Responsibility. Public Reason 4 (1-2):119-138.
Pablo Gilabert (2005). The Duty to Eradicate Global Poverty: Positive or Negative? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (5):537 - 550.
Corinna Mieth (2008). World Poverty as a Problem of Justice? A Critical Comparison of Three Approaches. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (1):15 - 36.
Pablo Gilabert (2007). Comentarios Sobre la Concepcion de la Justicia Global de Pogge. Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofia 33 (2):205-222.
Magnus Reitberger (2008). Poverty, Negative Duties and the Global Institutional Order. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (4):379-402.
Robert Huseby (2008). Duties and Responsibilities Towards the Poor. Res Publica 14 (1):1-18.
Thom Brooks (2007). Punishing States That Cause Global Poverty. William Mitchell Law Review 33 (2):519-32.
Pablo Gilabert (2006). Basic Positive Duties of Justice and Narveson's Libertarian Challenge. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (2):193-216.
Christian Barry & Gerhard Øverland (2012). The Feasible Alternatives Thesis: Kicking Away the Livelihoods of the Global Poor. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (1):97-119.
Thomas Pogge (2005). Severe Poverty as a Violation of Negative Duties. Ethics and International Affairs 19 (1):55–83.
Mark T. Nelson (2010). We Have No Positive Epistemic Duties. Mind 119 (473):83-102.
Pablo Gilabert (2012). From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford University Press, UK.
Mathias Risse (2005). Do We Owe the Global Poor Assistance or Rectification? Ethics and International Affairs 19 (1):9–18.
Thomas Pogge (2002). Cosmopolitanism: A Defence. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 5 (3):86-91.
Added to index2012-02-28
Total downloads24 ( #58,108 of 755,289 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #17,527 of 755,289 )
How can I increase my downloads?