David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Ethics 8 (4):349 - 395 (2004)
This article has three main parts, Section 2 considers the nature and extent to which individuals who are well-off have a moral obligation to aid the worlds needy. Drawing on a pluralistic approach to morality, which includes consequentialist, virtue-based, and deontological elements, it is contended that most who are well-off should do much more than they do to aid the needy, and that they are open to serious moral criticism if they simply ignore the needy. Part one also focuses on the United States, and illustrates both how incredibly wealthy the U.S. is and some of the spending habits of its citizens; however, its considerations apply to the well-off generally. Section 3 considers whether justice provides reasons for helping the needy. Noting that justice in an extremely complex notion, it discusses numerous considerations relevant to justices scope and implications, including an extended Rawlsian conception of justice, an absolute conception, a comparative conception, the distinction between natural and social justice, and various elements of common-sense morality. Section 2 also distinguishes between agent-relative justice-based reasons, which are relevant to whether we act justly, and agent-neutral justice-based reasons, which are relevant to whether we have reasons of justicefor acting. Correspondingly, it argues that even if one can ignore the needy without acting unjustly, as philosophers like Robert Nozick and Jan Narveson contend, there may be powerful reasons of justicefor addressing their plight. Section 4 briefly address the responsibilities of international organizations like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Trade Organization (WTO). Drawing on Section 2, it is suggested that in addition to standard reasons to act justlytowards needy members of the worlds community, there will be reasons of justicefor such organizations to aid the needy in both present, and future, generations. The article concludes by contending that the well-off in countries like the U.S. have reason to view international organizations like the World Bank, IMF, and WTO as their agents, and to seek to insure that they alleviate misfortunes amongst the worlds needy.
|Keywords||agent-neutral reasons agent-relative reasons comparative justice consequentialism conspicuous consumption deontology duties foreign aid future generations injustice International Monetary Fund justice Jan Narveson natural justice the needy pluralism poverty proportional justice John Rawls social justice virtue wealth World Bank World Trade Organization|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jorn Sonderholm (2012). Thomas Pogge on Global Justice and World Poverty: A Review Essay. Analytic Philosophy 53 (4):366-391.
Jorn Sonderholm (2011). World Poverty and Not Respecting Individual Freedom Enough. Journal of Philosophical Research 36:209-218.
Bharat Ranganathan (2012). On Helping One's Neighbor. Journal of Religious Ethics 40 (4):653-677.
Similar books and articles
Chelsea Luthringer (2000). So What is Justice Anyway? Rosen Pub. Group.
Jill Jacobs (2009). There Shall Be No Needy: Pursuing Social Justice Through Jewish Law & Tradition. Jewish Lights Pub..
Sirine Shebaya, Andrea Sutherland, Orin Levine & Ruth Faden (2010). Alternatives to National Average Income Data as Eligibility Criteria for International Subsidies: A Social Justice Perspective. Developing World Bioethics 10 (3):141-149.
Christian Barry (2007). Deen K. Chatterjee, Ed., The Ethics of Assistance: Morality and the Distant Needy:The Ethics of Assistance: Morality and the Distant Needy. Ethics 117 (2):338-342.
Douglas W. Portmore (2011). The Teleological Conception of Practical Reasons. Mind 120 (477):117 - 153.
Stan van Hooft (2011). Humanity or Justice? Journal of Global Ethics 7 (3):291-302.
Dana Freibach-Heifetz & Gila Stopler (2008). On Conceptual Dichotomies and Social Oppression. Philosophy and Social Criticism 34 (5):515-535.
Sagar Sanyal (2009). Political Equality and Global Poverty: An Alternative Egalitarian Approach to Distributive Justice. Dissertation, University of Canterbury
Richard J. Arneson (2005). Do Patriotic Ties Limit Global Justice Duties? Journal of Ethics 9 (1-2):127 - 150.
Larry S. Temkin (2005). Thinking About the Needy: A Reprise. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 8 (4):409 - 458.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #88,657 of 1,911,323 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #177,396 of 1,911,323 )
How can I increase my downloads?