Global poverty and international distributive justice
Global poverty and international distributive justice is an initiative which needs support across the world in an attempt to build an equitable society. It is one of the prominent topics in the field of political philosophy currently. International distributive justice concerns sharing our benefits and burdens in life or other words, building a world with a fair if not equal distribution of resources (Jolić, 725). Equitable distribution of resources helps in promoting world peace and development of the world economy hence eliminating poverty.
Different dimensions of support
Different philosophers champion for the agenda in different dimensions. As some philosophers subscribe, we all belong to the same international organizations, including WHO, UN, world bank and many other, which brings us together hence making us one. From that dimensions, philosophers like Pogge argue that, that’s enough to motivate people to share resources with those states and nations which are less developed. Those philosophers are said to be using a rational approach to substantiate their argument. Others use non-rational approaches and argue that we are all human being and from that aspect, we should be able to support our fellow rational people who are in other undeveloped regions hence subscribing to global poverty and international distributive justice.
Debate on content and scope
The primary debate concerning the principle of global distributive justice is majorly on the content and scope. One group of philosophers argue that sharing of resources should be among people of the same region while others state that the distribution should be to any part or person in need (Culp and Hassoun, 252). On the side of the scope, a group of philosophers argues that the distribution of resources should be limited to those in the same region while others support the allocation of resources to any part of the globe.
Thomas Pogge’s perspective
Thomas Pogge’s starting point of argument in support of global distributive justice’s based on the fact that, we share different institutional orders globally (Gray, 26). The institutions can either be formal such as (IMF), UN, world trade organization (WTO) among others, or informal such as international trade. He was therefore among the philosophers who subscribed to the rational perspective. Pogge stated unequivocally that, these institutions could be used to promote equitable distribution of resources through forming rules and regulations which favor all countries equitably. Pogge noted that the same institutions had been vessels of spreading poverty through imposing rules which favor the developed nations and press the developing and the undeveloped countries.
Creating a conducive environment
Pogge in his consideration stated that poverty as a result of the imposed orders is avoidable if at all the institutions form equitable regulations across all nations. Global distribution justice according to Pogge is not about sharing the wealth with the developing countries but creating a conducive environment for them to be able to provide and feed themselves. An example is through failing to tax commodities from those nations and many other methods.
In conclusion
In conclusion, global poverty and international distributive justice is a principle which needs to be supported in all institution to facilitate the distribution of resources. To eliminate poverty in most parts of the world only needs improvement of the political and economic environments. The world can be the best place for everyone if all nations and institutions subscribe to international distribution of justice as Pogge advocated.
Work cited
Jolić, Tvrtko. "Global Poverty and International Distributive Justice." Društvena istraživanja 22.4 (2014): 713-731.
Culp, Julian, and Nicole Hassoun. "Global Justice and International Affairs, edited by Thom Brooks." Journal of Moral Philosophy 13.2 (2016): 249-252.
Gray, Kevin W. "The Scope of the Global Institutional Order: Can Pogge Survive Cohen’s Critique of Rawls?." De Ethica. A Journal of Philosophical, Theological and Applied Ethics 2.2 (2015): 19-34.
