I am writing this objection to Pogge’s argument without yet having read Risse’s article, because I saw in Risse’s first paragraph that he too is advancing an objection and I wanted to try to come up with my own ideas.
Pogge’s essential argument combines two theses:
First, Pogge says that our moral reason to prevent particular medical diseases is not only based on “distributional factors,” but also on how we are related to the medical conditions. That is, we have a stronger moral responsibility to mitigate a disease that we are the cause of than one that is outside of our control.
Second, Pogge argues that the responsibility to mitigate a disease that we are the cause of is not sensitive to whether the medical conditions at stake are suffered by foreigners or by compatriots.
And combining the two we have: “Foreigners’ medical conditions, if social institutions we are materially involved in upholding substantially contribute to the incidence, have greater moral weight for us than compatriots’ medical conditions in whose causation we are not materially involved.”
As an economist, I certainly accept the first thesis, but I don’t necessarily buy the second and the combined. Since when is a country responsible for the well-being of all other countries? We live in a democratic, capitalist nation that rewards hard work, innovation, and production. And the factor that creates this reward is competition. Enterprises compete against each other for greater market share; people compete against each other for better jobs, and countries compete against each other for greater prosperity.
The leap that Pogge takes in concluding that developed countries’ economic institutions are the cause of world poverty baffles me. Because a country’s policies are focused on the interests of that country does not mean that they are causing harm to other countries (unless of course those policies are war and violence on other countries).
Is Pogge really saying that the countries that lose (the countries that employ less successful economic and political systems) are entitled to aid from wealthy countries because the wealthy countries are the cause of their poverty? It seems to me that Pogge is almost in favor of a socialist world.
While I’m in favor of a prosperous and developed world, and while I’m still torn on the healthcare and distributive justice issue in general, I think Pogge is taking it too far. My argument may seem a little cold-hearted, but, like I said, this is coming from an econ major. I’m open to attacks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A duty for developed countries to support underdeveloped ones may not be due to the “global order,” but that does not mean there are not billions of people living below the poverty line, dying of curable diseases, lacking food/shelter/education, etc. the list goes on. And although one can argue the cause of those injustices, does the cause matter?
ReplyDeleteIs there a duty to help those who do not have the ability to help themselves simply because we are all human? Thanks to the luck of the draw, where an individual is born dictates whether he/she is either wealthy and healthy or destitute and ill.
As you asked, mighty skunk, is Pogge claiming “wealthy countries are the ‘cause’ of their [poor country’s] poverty?” Risse’s response is an excellent, direct criticism of Pogge’s argument, however they are debating the cause of the economic gap and its relation to duty. Regardless of the cause, why do wealthy countries still not have a duty to help the underdeveloped?
Mighty Skunk I would have to agree with you on Pogge's theses. I am not sure if that makes me an economist or not. As far as, Pogge's statment on how developed countries economic institutions are the cause of world poverty, I believe that this is just a tactic that he is using to create a reaction. If you can get the "right" reaction out someone then you can get them to entertain the thought of the idea that he may be right. And possibly get the type of responses that you desires,so that they will now aid in combating world poverty.
ReplyDeleteI don't know I think he was serious. I never met the man but I have met others who hold the sentiment we are the ruining the world. For instance, sending plastic bottles to China to recycle.We send them then they sell them back to us. hmmmm. We pat ourselves on the back for saving the planet because no one else will and the whole reason we don't adopt the plastic recycling here? Well it makes the air too polluted forus to breathe. Some may never understand why some in the world blame us others look for why that could be. We help those who advance our precious way of life. If you don't have much to bring to the table, you can't sit here!
ReplyDeleteI may be too late to participate in the discussion at this point, but I'll just note one thing.
ReplyDeletePogge is a well-known proponent of cosmopolitanism. My hunch is that unless you are friendly to his cosmopolitanism, which obviously permeates the essay, it will be difficult to swallow the conclusion that he reaches.
As far as I'm concerned, Pogge and Singer share similar views about global poverty and health. And their cosmopolitanism may be the reason why some people find Singer's, and in our case, Pogge's, ideas radical and unintuitive.
I'll link an article by Singer, for anyone who is interested:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm