In E. Emanuel J. Millum (ed.), Global Justice and Bioethics. Oxford University Press. pp. 213-240 (2012)
Many people in the developing world access essential health services either partially or primarily through programs run by international non-governmental organizations (INGOs). Given that such programs are typically designed and run by Westerners, and funded by Western countries and their citizens, it is not surprising that such programs are regarded by many as vehicles for Western cultural imperialism. In this chapter, I consider this phenomenon as it emerges in the context of development and humanitarian aid programs, particularly those delivering medical treatment, nutrition and access to clean water. I argue that in order to avoid contributing to cultural imperialism, INGOs have a duty to ensure that they do not offer services in a way that requires their beneficiaries to choose between accessing essential health services and violating or otherwise undermining traditional norms and practices which have significance for their beneficiaries. Following Onora O'Neill, I argue that offers requiring such a choice are effectively “unrefuseable” and so coercive. INGOs therefore, must avoid making such offers, and can accomplish this by means of an iterated process of reciprocal negotiation under conditions of equality, in which both the INGOs’ and the beneficiaries’ deep values and concerns play a role. In essence, I claim that employing such a process is a requirement of procedural justice, given the non-ideal conditions in which INGOs must operate.
|Keywords||non-governmental organizations intercultural conflict non-ideal theory procedural justice coercion|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Health and Justice in Our Non-Ideal World.Gopal Sreenivasan - 2007 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (2):218-236.
The Value Theory of Democracy.Corey Brettschneider - 2006 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 5 (3):259-278.
Priority-Setting in International Non-Governmental Organizations: It is Not as Easy as ABCD.Lisa L. Fuller - 2012 - Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):5-17.
Impure Procedural Justice and the Management of Conflicts About Values.Emanuela Ceva - 2008 - Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (1):5-22.
Justified Commitments? Considering Resource Allocation and Fairness in Médecins Sans Frontières-Holland.Lisa Fuller - 2006 - Developing World Bioethics 6 (2):59–70.
On Rawls’s Distinction Between Perfect and Imperfect Procedural Justice.Martin Gustafsson - 2004 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34 (2):300-305.
Plural Values and Heterogeneous Situations. Considerations on the Scope for a Political Theory of Justice.Emanuela Ceva - 2007 - European Journal of Political Theory 6 (3):359-375.
International Service Learning Programs: Ethical Issues and Recommendations.Rebecca A. Reisch - 2011 - Developing World Bioethics 11 (2):93-98.
Examining the Construct of Organizational Justice: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Relations with Work Attitudes and Behaviors. [REVIEW]Chockalingam Viswesvaran & Deniz S. Ones - 2002 - Journal of Business Ethics 38 (3):193 - 203.
Procedural Justice?: Implications of the Rawls-Habermas Debate for Discourse Ethics.Cristina Lafont - 2003 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (2):163-181.
Justice and Procedure: How Does “Accountability for Reasonableness” Result in Fair Limit-Setting Decisions?Annette Rid - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (1):12-16.
Added to index2011-06-28
Total downloads336 ( #8,371 of 2,163,694 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #20,870 of 2,163,694 )
How can I increase my downloads?