Do rich countries have a moral duty to end global poverty - Essay Example

Many a times, these benefits are gained by compromising upon the social and economic condition of a poorer country. An in-depth analysis of numerous aspects of the world economy reveals the fact that the consumption patterns of rich countries often offend the bounds of justice, thus making use of the labor, natural resources, land, and even political security of poorer countries to establish such a system of exchange wherein the rich countries keep getting considerable underserved and unearned benefits compared to the poor countries.

For example, before 1964, oil companies based in the US purchased the Arabian crude oil for almost $2 a barrel which was sold at a price that gave the US two main subsidies (Corbett, 1993). First, oil companies along with their stockholders gained huge advantages consuming the only significant natural resource that the then powerless and traditionally poor countries had. Secondly, consumers in the US were subsidized to oil prices that were exceptionally cheap for their inefficient cars and other domestic and industrial needs.

This happened as a direct subsidy of the poor countries. Today, the price of oil at the wellhead has risen 12 times and reflects more in the money consumers spend on energy than in the profits of the stockholders. Still, purchasing Arabian crude oil is deemed to be cheaper for the US than using her own oil. The subsidy continues in spite of being greatly reduced. The principle of ruling by power and lack of justice not only prevails across countries but is also observed in many areas within the same country.

For example, the international corporations based in the US and a very tiny native elite owns major part of the land in Latin America that is used for the production of luxury crops while the indigenous inhabitants of this land have very limited access to the arable land and cannot freely grow crops for their own consumption. These poor inhabitants provide hunger as the subsidy for the luxury of the rich Americans. It is frequently argued that rich countries have a moral obligation rooted in justice to the poor countries since their patterns of consumption offend the poor countries’ freedom rights.

However, the establishment of justice requires stable expectations in reciprocity which although has some basis in the domestic sphere, yet there is no basis for it in the international sphere. This thesis is defended by a discussion of the aspects of justice that can be distinguished as reciprocity for the distribution of wealth across countries, followed by a criticism of the cosmopolitan view on the subject, and the possible implications of transfer of wealth and resources from the rich to the poor countries that make such a deal impracticable in the real world.

When there is no institutional framework, a single act of benevolence even if becomes effective in helping the rich country attain its desired objective of helping out the poor country in some way, does not require a practice underlying it. In other words, when a rich country wants to do a good turn to a poor country, it may be achievable without any problem. But if the idea behind doing the good turn is that it deserves another in return, the rich countries have a reason to only do a good turn if they can make the poor countries believe that they also share this principle and will do their bit when the time comes.

However, this proposition’s second part is unfounded as being true all across