Global justice: an anti-collectivist and pro-causal ethic (original) (raw)
2012, Journal of Catholic Social Thought
Both philosophical and practical analyses of global justice issues have been vitiated by two errors: a too-high emphasis on the supposed duties of collectives to act, and a too-low emphasis on the analysis of causes and risks. Concentrating instead on the duties of individual actors and analysing what they can really achieve reconfigures the field. It diverts attention from individual problems such as poverty or refugees or questions on what states should do. Instead it shows that there are different duties for political leaders, intelligence operatives, opinion leaders and citizens in devising, urging and implementing such plans as transfers of aid with accountability, military interventions in rogue states and limited intakes of refugees. With collectivist excuses for inaction such as sovereignty out of the way, it is possible to take a cautiously optimistic view of the possibility of forceful and morally responsible interventions in the range of major global problems. This articl...
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
A Précis of On Global Justice, With Emphasis on Implications for International Institutions
Boston College Law Review, 2012
The two traditional ways of thinking about justice at the global level either limit the applicability of justice to states or else extend it to all human beings. The view I defend rejects both these approaches and instead recognizes different considerations or conditions based on which individuals are in the scope of different principles of justice. Finding a philosophically convincing alternative to those approaches strikes me as the most demanding and important challenge contemporary political philosophy faces (one that in turn reflects the significance of the political issues that are at stake). My own view, and thus my attempt at meeting this challenge, acknowledges the existence of multiple grounds of justice. This book seeks to present a foundational theory that makes it plausible that there could be multiple grounds of justice and to defend a specific view of the grounds that I call pluralist internationalism. Pluralist Internationalism grants particular normative relevance t...
In the context of international political relations, the demands of global justice remain controversial, especially in terms of the relationships between developed and developing societies, where many questions arise regarding what justice entails, how much is owed, and to whom. Traditional political philosophy has identified national boundaries as the legitimate ethical horizons of justice, with all matters of justice outside said borders identified as 'international' affairs, to be handled between states. The political philosopher John Rawls's 1991 thesis The Law of Peoples has greatly influenced political thought regarding the legitimacy of states and the primacy of the interests of societies in matters of international justice. This article will explore a critique of his theory of international justice from the perspective of a disciple of Rawls's and a theorist on cosmopolitan justice, Charles R. Beitz. He argue that taking national boundaries as the starting point for global justice is inadequate to the practical and ethical demands of justice, and suggest that we may need to reevaluate the foundations of international relations by taking persons, and not peoples, as the starting point for theories of global justice.
Global Justice: An Exegesis of Contemporary Theories
The field of global justice is rife with academic disagreement on a number of fundamental questions - “What does ‘global’ mean in this context?”, “What would justice look like?”, “Who is best placed to achieve it?”, “Is the aim of global justice to set base standards, or as Stanley Hoffman describes, “starting from what is and groping towards the “ought”” (1991)?”. This essay will show that the lack of consensus on global justice is a microcosm of schisms present in international relations (IR) perspectives. This impasse renders a universal conception of global justice untenable and infeasible. More cogently, if one cannot construct a hypothetical, coherent solution to global justice, how will it be implemented?
The Third Wave of Theorizing Global Justice. A Review Essay.
Debates on global justice are flourishing. In this review article I examine three recent contributions to this debate, which, even though they differ from each other in their overall approach and normative conclusion, exemplify what might be called the third wave of global justice theorizing. Aaron James’s Fairness in Practice, Mathias Risse’s On Global Justice, and Laura Valentini’s Justice in a Globalized World belong to the third wave of theories of global justice in virtue of a combination of features: They disentangle conceptual and normative disagreements that underpinned debates between cosmopolitans and non-cosmopolitans, or statists and globalists; drawing on their refined conceptual toolkit, they develop both substantive and methodological alternatives to familiar positions; and they take these alternatives as a vantage point for thinking about what justice would require of particular aspects of the international order, sometimes in very practical terms. My discussion of the third wave proceeds in four steps. First, I shall present the key arguments and most important ideas of each book. I introduce Valentini’s coercion framework for thinking about questions of global justice, explain how James thinks of structural equity as a requirement of fairness in international trade, and present Risse’s approach of pluralist internationalism and its focus on common ownership of the earth. Second, I shall explain how each contribution exhibits at least some of the features characteristic of the third wave. On the one hand, this section explains why in spite of their differences a common label is appropriate for James, Risse and Valentini. On the other hand, it offers an account of the virtues and strengths of each approach. Third, I present what I believe is a systematic challenge to the third wave of global justice: Each way of covering the middle ground between statism and globalism comes with a particular difficulty, giving rise to what one may call a third wave dilemma. Finally, I conclude by sketching how the third wave is likely to transform the research agenda of international political theorists. Even those developing alternatives to the third wave will have to be measured by the standards it sets.
Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account
DOI:10.5007/1677-2954.2010v9n1p127
Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy, 2011
Global Justice is a fascinating and powerful work about what can and ought to be done to achieve a better future for our species. Built on a Rawlsian styled thought experiment and supported by empirical reporting, the book presents a "basic framework of governing the world's inhabitants" (p. 50).Brock invites her readers to imagine a situation in which delegates from the peoples of the world meet to agree on principles of international justice but are impartial because they remain ignorant of their initial social position and interests. That is, they operate behind a "veil of ignorance" that induces impartiality. Global Justice extends the Rawlsian framework to the entire global community in innovative ways and applies it to important policy questions. Brock advocates a trans-boundary, trans-cultural moral concern for others (referred to as "global cosmopolitanism") against a more traditional notion that our moral obligations are primarily to those in our own group, community, or country (referred to as "liberal nationalism"). As in Rawls's Justice as Fairness, there are two sorts of implications reached from the impartial reasoning within the original position: one concerns rights and liberties, the other concerns the distribution of economic welfare. In this review I will touch upon three aspects of her analysis: distributive justice, rights and liberties, and the role of nationalism in moral theorizing about global justice.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.