On the Universal Power of Socioeconomic Rights: A Comparison Between Thomas Pogge and Rainer Forst

Introduction. This article investigates the universal power of socioeconomic rights assessing their theoretical conceptualization and practical implication. Methods. Taking theoretical and empirical research into account – at the level of public ethics and political theory – the article carries out a comparative analysis of the elements of global economic justice theory, moral universalism and institutional understanding of human rights of Thomas Pogge and the critical theory of political and social justice and the moral constructivist conception of human rights of Rainer Forst. Analysis. On the one hand, Pogge’s cosmopolitan approach underlines serious noncompliance of socioeconomic rights at the global level because of the unjust distribution of rights and duties enforced by the current global institutional order. In this vein, the protection of socioeconomic rights is conceived as a (moral) negative duty not to deprive people of secure access to a basic human rights object, and socioeconomic rights, by imposing upon them unjust coercive social institutions. On the other hand, Forst’s perspective maintains that each right needs to be constructed on the very basic moral right to reciprocal and general justification which is conceived as the most universal and basic claim of every human being. Results. Drawing on the above-mentioned outlooks on socioeconomic rights, the universal power of socioeconomic rights is assessed in light of the satisfaction of universal basic needs, whose object is also the object of socioeconomic rights – a ‘conditio sine qua non’ for a worthwhile life – and the justification of the assigned duties at the global level.

Red in Tooth and Claw No More: Animal Rights and the Permissibility to Redesign Nature

Most non-human animals live in the wild and it is probable that suffering predominates in their lives due to natural events. Humans may at some point be able to engage in paradise engineering, or the modification of nature and animal organisms themselves, to improve the well-being of wild animals. We may, in other words, make nature ‘red in tooth and claw’ no more. We argue that this creates a tension between environmental ethics and animal ethics which is likely insurmountable. First, we argue that concern for the environment can be compatible with helping individual wild animals but should see redesigning nature as morally impermissible. Second, we argue that if we are concerned with animal well-being, we may reject that we have a duty to help wild animals even to the point of redesigning nature, but we must nevertheless concede that it is permissible to do so under certain circumstances. We show how this permissibility can be derived from three animal rights views: Tom Regan’s, a novel account inspired by Thomas Pogge and a libertarian approach to animal rights.

A Teoria de Justiça global como alternativa à Teoria de Justiça rawlsiana em contextos de dominação múltipla

No contexto multifacetado atual, há atores que se beneficiam do design estrutural mundial ao mesmo passo em que a diversos outros são impostas barreiras que dificultam o acesso às riquezas – as quais, defende-se, em havendo uma arquitetura distribucional global voltada à equidade, poderiam ser melhor alocadas, de maneira a beneficiar um maior número de indivíduos. Nesse passo, o presente artigo, utilizando-se, principalmente, de método de pesquisa bibliográfico, possui o objetivo de demonstrar que a visão rawlsiana, ainda que cabível em sociedades herméticas, é inadequada para um mundo submerso em desigualdades econômicas altamente maculadas pela forma de acumulação histórica, predatória e usurpadora, imposta pelos países mais desenvolvidos economicamente em relação aos pobres globais. Assim, busca demonstrar, por uma análise de conjunto e com referência na teoria de justiça global consoante avançada por Thomas Pogge, a maneira pela qual a estruturação global ainda hoje prejudica, seletivamente – i.e., principalmente por meio dos privilégios internacionais sobre recursos e sobre empréstimos -, países, mantendo-os – ou, mais frequentemente, suas populações - em condição de pobreza.

Thomas Pogge’s Conception of Taking the Global Institutional Order as the Object of Justice Assessments

Might our reasoning about social justice at the domestic level—for instance, with regard to the kind of objects that our justice assessments are immediately concerned with and the content of principles employed—properly diverge from its counterpart at the global level? This is the question around which much of the current global justice debate revolves. This chapter is devoted to examining and arguing that the answers provided by Thomas Pogge for the most part retain their plausibility despite the barrage of criticism they have provoked. While Pogge is particularly renowned for his contention that existing world poverty constitutes an injustice that implicates ordinary citizens of affluent societies in negative duty violations, this chapter will not be directly weighing in on this debate. Rather, it seeks to examine a fundamental commitment in Pogge’s justice theorizing: if we are to take the basic institutional scheme of a domestic society as the primary subject of justice in virtue of its profound and pervasive effects, then consistency requires us to subject the global institutional scheme to the same type of justice analysis, and to devise a corresponding set of principles governing its design. Through clarifying the meaning and implications of this proposition, this chapter hopes to bring out a more lucid and unified reading of Pogge’s institutional approach to justice theorizing, one that is both appealing and remains viable in the absence of a world government.

Declaring the Global Economy a Status Confessionis?

This article revisits theologian Ulrich Duchrow’s three-decade-old use of the Protestant notion of status confessionis to denounce the capitalist global economy. Scholars quickly dismissed Duchrow’s argument; however, philosopher Thomas Pogge has developed a remarkable “negative duty”—based critique of the current global economic order that might help revitalize Duchrow’s position. The article argues that sound reasons exist for the churches to declare the contemporary world economy a—provisionally termed—status confessionis minor. After explaining the inadequacy of Duchrow’s original position and summarizing Pogge’s account, the article develops a twofold argument. First, Pogge’s in-depth inquiry into the world economy gives Duchrow’s call for a status confessionis a strong yet narrowing economic foundation. Second, to declare the world economy a status confessionis minor is theological-ethically justifiable if the limited though indispensable “prophetic” significance of doing so is acknowledged. Thus, Duchrow’s approach is justified, but only partially.

The Border of Responsibilities in Global Distribution of Aid: Ethical Issues and Challenges in Practices

This essay intends to analyse the debate about responsibility in the discourse of global justice. The topic is inspired by the statement of Thomas Pogge who argues that the minor outcome in promoting global justice is generated by a deep ethical problem on the question of responsibility rather than a technical problem such as taxation and liberalisation policy (2001a). He argues that many global problems would be solved if only the affluent countries perceived their roles in sending foreign aid as a responsibility and not as charity, which is how many communitarians perceive it. This ethical debate will be the concern of my essay. The main agenda is to find the most convincing argument for ethical guidance in the current world. Analysing through the lense of Bertrand Russell’s (1961) parameter of ‘commendable ethics,’ this essay validates Pogge’s position that foreign aid from affluent states is part of negative responsibility and therefore commendable as an ethical guide in promoting global justice.

Improving the Present

An influential set of arguments defends policies of global redistribution as a response to the currently existing unjust global order. Thomas Pogge argues that this order actively harms the poor, and that the appropriate response is to tax citizens of wealthy countries to redistribute resources. The authors agree that a number of elements of the global order are unjust, such as resource and borrowing privileges, and ought to be reformed. However, Pogge’s desired redistributive conclusions require implausible assumptions about responsibility and globalization. The chapter turns to a more promising proposal to fix the problems surrounding natural resources, offered by Leif Wenar. While this proposal would be an improvement over the status quo, it still invokes a seriously problematic notion of collective ownership of natural resources. The best approach remains to treat individuals as the owners of their private property, and protect them in the freedoms for which this book argues.

Review of Global Tax Fairness, Thomas Pogge and Krishen Mehta, Editors

This timely volume (Global Tax Fairness, edited by Thomas Pogge and Krishen Mehta) on the proper taxation of multinational enterprises argues that several feasible, near-term reforms could substantially narrow the scope for tax avoidance by closing information gaps, and it proposes more ambitious, long-term reforms that pursue coordination on the design, not just the enforcement, of tax policy. The editors construct an impassioned normative case that (legal) avoidance violates fairness because its negative effects fall especially hard on the world's poor, but their case could be bolstered by an appeal to the classical benefit-based logic behind the central aim of the reforms they recommend. (JEL D63, F23, H25, H87, K34).