Global Justice & Global Poverty - Essay Example

?Global Justice and Global Poverty Global Justice and Global Poverty The world today is full ofinequalities in the developed society. This inequalities is very evident in the state of the standards of living among different peole in the same society. It is unfortunate that these inequalities are more than the estate was about 50 years ago. It is unfortunate that from the many that with the changes taking place in the world today, there are higher cases of inequalities than in the previous years (Schaefer 2007, p23). Some of the constutuents that measure living standards include the per capita, age of people and life expentancy among others. There is the fear of the gap widening more in the years to come if no action has taken place to curb this problem. Inequality is massive in the decision making of policies in the international political and in financial insititutions.John Rawl explains this in his theory on global liberties. They exist in form of both global economic and political basis. “There is uneven distribution of resources in the world” (Pogge, p34, par 3); hence, causing inequality in the living standards. Discrimination is another factor that leads to inequality especially when the poor people are discriminated in relation to their economic status the society. Many peole are dying in East Bengal due to lack of food, medical care among other basic needs. This shows how much inequality has affected the world today. It is possible to evade poverty among such poeple through applying several policies. This paper will focuss on the effects of global justice and the increasing cases of global poverty. It also analyzes possible solutions to this problem so to achive lower levels of poverty cases if any. The issue of double standards has also been addressed in this paper. However, double standards is not justified whatever the situation. Global justice has become an issue in political philosophy arising from the unjust state of the world today (Pogge, 2007, p345). Thinking about global justice in the world today involves a double standard. This involves two broad parties to achieve global justice. The first party is at the individual level while the second is the government level. Teh context of global justice is the impartiality that bhas been created in the world today. This is because people believe that their duties to family members, friends and their personal issues are more important than those of strangers. This makes them less concerned about issues of people who appear to be strangers to them. The government also contributes to the state of glodal injustice through the various policies they make for their cirtizens. This is because they make policies with their citizens in mind only, not considering those of other countries. “This has also led to some of the conflicts existing between some states” (Schaefer , p23 par4). Global justice is the main cause of global security because injustice causes certain feelings in people like anger and humiliation. These feelings cause violence among societies in the quest for justice. For instance, the poor feel that the wealthy people in the society are the cause of their poverty. Such feelings trigger violence and in long run lead to wars in the world. Philosophers have tried coming up with theories to solv ethe problem of global injustice in the world today. An example of such a philosopher is John Rawl. He explains how to achieve justice in the world both on the basis of economic status and political inequalities. Morality is also another factor to consider when seeking to ensure justice (Pogge 2007, p34). This is because it is morally upright to ensure equality in the society. Some theories term injustice and inequality in the socity as an immoral act. However, the theory of Rawl explains clearly on how to curb the problem of injustice in the world by avoiding discrimination. He explains that making decisions should not be on the basis of teh economic status of a person. It ensures that there is no inequality on the decisions made in insitutions. “Cosmopolitanism and statism are common issues in the global justice” (Pogge, p34 par 7) . A great percantage of people in the world today are not well off to meet of their basic necessities due to the high levels of poverty. This can be contributed to the fact that there is neglect of public goods. “Taxation is one of the tools that can curb poverty in the world” (Schaefer, p23, par6). It can be achieved by taxing less for public goods so that all people are able to purchase them and meet their basic needs. There are increasing cases of poverty in the society. This is because the living conditions have increased, therefore, not everybody is able to reach the standards. Those who fall below the poverty level find it hard to survive and satisfy basic needs. Most of these people lack education and have low paying jobs while others do not have jobs. This means that they cannot feed themselves neither their families. I agree with Pogge that we owe the global account on reasons why there is imposition of the standrads. In his book, Pogge gives reasons about social inequalities in the world today. He gives both direct and derivative reasons for the above. “Direct reasons explain that inequality is visible in the distribution of things like income, health care in the society” (Pogge, p34, par 5). These things should be distributes evenly in the society to ensure that all people have equal acess to the services. For instance, social ammenities like education should be easily accessible to every member of the society regardlerss of their economical situation. Other things like income, political power and resources should be distributed evenly. Pogge regards equality of all these resources fundamental requirments of ethics in the world. He uses this as a challenge for producing an interpretation of the requirements above. He urgues that at times an unequal distribution of resources is better than an equal one. It is the case where equality is not the fundamental basis but other values should be put unto consideration. This ensures it is not only one factor that is considered in the queat for seeking justice. Other factors should alo be put into consideration so that it becomes a fair and just judgment. some of these requirments include ethics that have to be considered in the process of bmaking decisions. However, derivative reasons handle social responsibility differenly from the other reasons. It treats social responsibility as bad. It is as a result of the consequences it has on the values different from equality. These reasons explain that values would be better by folowing some steps with the aim of reducing the levels of social inequality in the world. For instance income distribution should be done so that it achieves great social welfare (Pogge 2007, p34). This is because it is supposed to produce a diminishing marginal utility. This reason seeks to explain the aspect of achieving equality by using several factors and ethics as its requirements “The derivative reason explains how the society can achieve welfare for everybody and not just a group of people in the society”(Pogge, 2007, p345). . There is a distiction between beleiving in equality and the priority view which explains inequalities present in the society. In his theory, John believes that solving any problem in an organization entails distributive justice and allocating the goods to the society members. The distributive justice entails distributing goods to the society. John derives two pronciples from his theory. The fisrt princple is the difference principle which he explains to be theb saving principle (Schaefer 2007, p23). The second principle according to John is the liberty principle which he explains to be justice of fairness. These principles encourage equality and liberty for parties under such circumstances. They also encourage fairness in the choice situation they are in at that particular circumstance. These principles aim at guiding how the parties conduct themselves so that they encourage coorperation on mutual terms.Through this hypothesis, the parties come up with various alternatives which will include libertarian and utilitarian accounts. According to Rawl, in the first principle there might be aconflict of liberties but majority of these liberties meet its requirements. The second principle involves arranging the economic and social inequalities so that they are of benefit to the less fortunate in the society (Pogge, 2007, p345). Officers should also operate under fair equality of opportunities so that they achieve the aims of this principle. The principle works under the condition that achiving equality cannot be through worsening the situation of the disavantged in the society. Some factors like family background should not be used as a basis of determining oportunities (Schaefer 2007, p34). This is beacuse nobody deserves their inborn talent, therefore, should not be the basis for providing distribution. The second principles shows that positions in offices should not be distributed merely on merits but also on reasonable opportunity to acquire skills. “The inequalities that exist in the society on the basis of economy and social status of individuals undermine political liberties” (Pogge, 2007, p345). The values of political liberties is undermined by the above factors and other measures that are aimed at achieving fair and just equality of opportunities. Conclusion Global inequality is the largest contributor in the increasing levels of poervty in the world today. Reaserch shows that existence of equality in the society would reduce by a great percentage the levels of poverty globally. It is important for both the government and individuals to come up with remedies for all forms of inequalities. This is because it is upto everyone to ensure that there is equality in the society so that there is rteduction of poverty levels in the world. In his book, Pogge provides some solutions and remedies to this problem (Pogge 2007, p23). It is, therefore, essential for the society to analyze such remedies so that they curb inequality; hence reducing poverty levels in the society. It is possible to reduce poverty in contrary to the common belief that it is impossible. Bibliographies Pogge, T. W. M. (2007). Freedom from poverty as a human right: who owes what to the very poor? Oxford, Oxford University Press. Schaefer, D. L. (2007): Illiberal justice: John Rawls Vs. The American political tradition: University of Missouri Press. Read More