Thomas Pogge's Global Resources Dividend relies on a flat tax on the use of natural resources to fund the eradication of world poverty. Hillel Steiner's Global Fund taxes the full rental value of owned natural resources and distributes the proceeds equally. The paper compares the Dividend and the Fund and defends the Global Share, a novel proposal that taxes either use or ownership, does so (when possible) progressively, and distributes the revenue according to a prioritarian rather than a sufficientarian or (...) egalitarian principle. (shrink)

G. A. Cohen proposes to eradicate inequality without loss of efficiency or freedom by relying on an egalitarian ethos requiring us to undertake socially useful occupations we would rather not take, and work hard at them, without requesting differential incentive payments. Since the ethos is not legally enforced, Cohen denies it threatens our occupational freedom. Drawing on the work of Joseph Raz, the paper argues that Cohen's proposal threatens our occupational autonomy even if it leaves our legal freedom intact. It (...) also proposes a revised ethos which respects occupational autonomy. (shrink)

Although G. A. Cohen's work on Marx was flawed by a lack of gender-awareness, his work on Rawls owes much of its success to feminist inspiration. Cohen appeals effectively to feminism to rebut the basic structure objection to his egalitarian ethos, and could now appeal to feminism in response to Andrew Williams's publicity objection to this ethos. The article argues that Williams's objection is insufficient to rebut Cohen's ethos, inapplicable to variants of this ethos, and in conflict with plausible gender-egalitarian (...) ethoses. The article also advocates an understanding of basic structuralism and publicity consistent with feminism, and argues that Rawlsians need not reject plausible domestic egalitarian ethoses on either publicity or liberty grounds. To Michèle, G. A. Cohen's Harriet Taylor. (shrink)

Individual decisions about how to exercise the legal right to procreative liberty may generate either positive or negative externalities. From within a resource egalitarian perspective, such as that of Ronald Dworkin, it can be argued that procreative justice is asymmetric in the following respect. Justice need not require that parents be subsidised if they produce a public good, yet its ideal achievement may require their activities be taxed if they threaten to produce a public bad.

Este artículo discute las implicaciones ético-políticas que han seguido atribuyéndose al darwinismo en las numerosas obras publicadas a raíz del bicentenario del nacimiento de Darwin. Analiza la relación del darwinismo con el materialismo, el marxismo, el darwinismo social, la eugenesia, el conservadurismo, el creacionismo y el ateísmo, distinguiendo las justificadas asociaciones de ciertas hipótesis biológicas con varias tendencias políticas y la injustificada asociación del evolucionismo con distintas ideologías.

A rational moral code must satisfy the condition of completeness. This same condition applies to a set of moral rights, where it takes the form of requiring that all the rights in that set be compossible: that their respective correlatively entailed duties be jointly fulfillable. Such joint fulfillability is guaranteed only by a set of fully differentiated individual domains. And if moral rights are to play any independent role in moral reasoning - any role logically independent of the values that (...) bring persons into conflict - those domains must be determined by rules which are not derived from those values. (shrink)

Outside Europe landlocked states are poor: 16 are extremely poor and another 16 very poor. The Sustainable Development Goals recognise their lack of sea-access as a major cause of their reduced chances of escaping poverty and reaching the stated goals. This paper proposes including corridors to the sea and other forms of sea-access among the SDGs. It also discusses objections to doing so that appeal to the rejection of global egalitarian arguments, to the possibility of compensating those countries for their (...) disadvantage rather than removing it, and to the territorial rights of the coastal countries. The paper concludes that none of these objections to the corridors, and a fortiori to the less ambitious remedies of the Almaty and Vienna Programmes, withstands scrutiny. (shrink)

I'm very grateful to receive such long and thoughtful responses from some of the world's most creative and influential moral philosophers. Since I largely agree with Jeff McMahan and Larry Temkin, I will devote most of my scarce space to Rob Sparrow.Sparrow earlier claimed that since women gestate and live longer, enhancers are committed to parents conceiving only girls. To avoid this absurdity, we must reject enhancement and endorse what Sparrow calls “therapy”. I noted we first need to know what (...) “therapy” means, and devised various clarificatory cases. This central aspect of my paper remains unaddressed, with Sparrow admitting his view is ill-defined.1 He also grants his reductio is inapplicable to some enhancement doctrines, implying he provided no case uniquely favouring therapy.Other enhancement doctrines may avoid Sparrow's reductio for different reasons. For example, John Harris noted that enhancers are not committed to enhancing regardless of consequences, including extinction. Sparrow then denies extinction-avoidance provides reasons for individuals. I argued that it is wrong for individuals to contribute to disasters like extinction or climate change. Sparrow now admits this but claims parents may permissibly do so for their children's sake.1 Their children presumably can reciprocate, so family emissions can grow with everybody permissibly taking for others what it remains impermissible for those others to take for themselves. Since this is implausible, Sparrow's argument fails.Sparrow also claimed that a non-individual concern to prevent extinction is akin to Nazi eugenics, and comparable to creating people with barely worth-living lives to feel superior to them. Commenting on the case, I claimed that “the avoidable creation of lives barely worth living is itself abhorrent”.2 McMahan assumed I meant ‘creating such lives is never permissible’,3 but by “avoidable” I meant ‘when creating better …. (shrink)