Global Justice and the Poor - Essay Example

? GLOBAL JUSTICE AND THE POOR There are two different categories of people in the society that we live in. One is the poor one and the other are the rich ones. It has been like this since the times, when humans started living in the form of societies and in groups. The current trend of the world economics is such that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. This trend has been on the increase and has reached to a level where the number of people living below the poverty line has increased at a staggering rate. TWO PERSPECTIVES ON POVERTY: There are many different perspectives on poverty. The two that will be discussed in the paper are that of Bill Gates and that of Thomas Pogge. It is very interesting to study the perspective of Bill Gates on poverty. He has emerged as a very successful person in the field of business and technology and now his success as a social responsibility champion has made him a figure to be considered for his views on poverty. His views on poverty are quite different than the usual views that are prevalent in the market today. His ideas to quite an extent are controversial and therefore make a very interesting study. Though he is very new to the field his views are worth considering because he has allocated a sum of 38.7 billion dollars to help the social cause and help make this world a better place to live. Thomas Pogge is considered to be one of the most known figures in the world on the topic of Global Justice and poverty. He has many researches to his name and is also the author of the best known published book World Poverty and Human Rights. The views on poverty and the possible things that hamper reduction of poverty, things that cause poverty and also what are the solutions to eradicate poverty are all very different and contrasting and therefore make an interesting study. Non?Maleficence v. Beneficence It is common belief of both Pogge and Gates that the world markets should be developed in such a way that help promote economic growth. When the economic growth is promoted the living standards of people will automatically be upgraded and the developing countries will be in much more improved situations. They both are of the opinion that capitalism should exist and it has no contribution to poverty levels in the developing countries. In fact, Pogge has very clearly mentioned in his writings that in his opinion World Trade Organization has opened the market too little and this is a contributing factor to poverty. Gates and Pogge both believe that the increasing global wealth inequities help in solving the issue of poverty. They both again agree on the fact that poverty is a very pressing issue and should be dealt with effectively and efficiently. The differences in their perspectives becomes very clear when we see that Gates believes that beneficence is the way we can reduce poverty and Pogge is of the opinion that to reduce poverty we need to be non?maleficence. This is one contrasting feature in their opinion of existence of poverty and therefore it becomes the base of the different ways which they will employee to reduce poverty. Gates has suggested that we can reduce poverty effectively and in a long lasting way, by being more benevolent. This opinion of his clearly suggests that he is not looking to get rid of poverty completely. His realistic opinion is that poverty can surely be reduced but it cannot be gotten rid of completely. His opinion however, in no way indicates that he wants people to remain poor. In a contrasting opinion Pogge believes the global institutional order should be formed again as it does nothing to reduce poverty but in fact promotes it. In Pogge’s opinion poverty is a problem that has been created because of the issue of global justice and he believes that institutions inflict harm on each other and that this should be stopped. He believes that to reduce poverty global, injustice should be reduced along with socioeconomic poverty. He also believes that the inaccessibility that exists for some socially low class citizens to basic goods and facilities should be reduced. He has also rightly said that the current institutional order is shaped by the better off (the rich) and just imposed on the poorer class (the worse off) (Reitberger 382). Pogge is of opinion that countries belonging to developed world always have given excuses about working earnestly on the issue of poverty. The whole world orders including the institutions have been setup in a way that the poor countries never have access to the resources in a similar way as the developed countries. People from developed countries though apparently try to improve the situation of poverty but all of their efforts are superficial. He also says that people whoever they be always have the tendency to create things and situations that are beneficial to them and therefore, considering this the developed countries would never create a thing that is beneficial for the under developed or poorer countries. He has mentioned in his book that when the countries become wealthy they do not gather the actual feelings and deprivations of the poorer countries and they always feel that they are acting in best interest of the underdeveloped countries. He says that since the western states are so well developed it is therefore, their responsibility to build an institution that works for the benefit of under developed countries and their lack to do so shows and signifies the concept that Pogge has developed of non?maleficence. THOMAS POGGE’S PHILOSOPHY Problem: The problem in his opinion that needs solving is Global injustice. He feels that the countries that are in power, it is their responsibility to build a structure that is well developed and consists of regulations that will help improve the conditions of those who are living a poor life. He feels that there should be justice in all the resources and rights. The social institutions that have been created should be careful about their mandate and should practice what they are formed to do. The social institutions should be mindful of their actions. The actions that they take not only affect those who are directly related to it, but also those who are non-residents or not even citizens of that country. In his opinion Justice is served when every human being living on the planet has access to basic goods that are required for living a comfortable life. The basic goods that should be available to everyone have four limits or conditions. The first condition is that the basic goods are restricted to the essential goods that are required for the people to live. The second condition is that the people should have access to a limited but adequate share of essential goods. The third condition is that the people should have access to essential goods. The fourth condition is that the access that people have to the essential goods is limited probabilistically. The probabilistically limit means that everyone who is directly or indirectly affected by an institution has an absolute secure and safe access to all the essential goods, but those that are affected by the institution should be safe and well protected. Pogge has defined poverty by giving examples. The definition that he has given is in economic terms. He has said that if the world problems relating to poverty are analyzed in detail, it can be concluded that overall the number of people who live below the World Bank’s poverty line limit of $2 per day includes (forty percent of the world population) faces an annual shortfall of around three hundred billion, which if provided could reduce or end poverty. And this is the same amount that the United States spends on its military based activities. Pogge also says that GRD should be used as a practical method to help eradicate poverty. He believes that global institutions should be developed to help the proper implementation and this, in fact is a matter of “morality” and therefore requires institutional acceptability all the way up to the top (Thomas Pogge’s Global Resources Dividend 318-319). He does not believe in the fact that the whole wealth of the world should be redistributed so that everyone gets an equal share, but he is of the opinion that all the -institutions that are responsible should be fair in distribution of wealth. Such institutions that are maleficent, prevent unrest in any country or place, as the people at grass root level will be more concerned about their survival and hence will not group together to fight against the political setup that exists in the country. In his opinion the main thing that comes forward as a hurdle is in fact the global institutional order. Pogge believes that a lot if injustice is prevalent in this world and this is mainly due to the uneven distribution of wealth. According to information, if we consider the income gap between one fifth of the world’s people coming from richest countries and the same amount from extremely poor countries the it has gone from thirty to one in 1960 in comparison to the double, sixty to one in 1990, a thirty year period (Pogge) BILL GATES: Bill Gates has repeatedly emphasized that to be able to vote and chose the leader that they want to rule over them is what actually the right thing is. If people have the right to choose their own leader then they will be able to fight poverty as the leader will be familiar with the demands that they have and will try to fulfill it for them. In Bill Gates opinion the thing that actually hampers reduction of poverty is the increased inequality as it makes it difficult for people to get rid of the shackles of society and their unmet needs. He says that the reason that poverty is still prevalent and it is getting difficult to get rid of is that there is a serious lack of benevolence and people are least bothered to give back to the society when they are gaining so much from it. I am of the opinion that it is true that the world inequality is on the rise due to the fact that the rich and developed countries are not bothered about correcting the situation for the less developed. Though increased globalization has caused employment opportunities, they are not sufficient as the workers are being over used and less paid and therefore, bringing the decrease in poverty to a standstill. WORKS CITED Pogge, Thomas W. "Eradicating Systemic Poverty: Brief for a Global Resources Dividend." Journal of Human Development. 2.1 (2001). Print. Reitberger, Magnus. "Poverty, Negative Duties and the Global Institutional Order."Politics, Philosophy and Economics. 7.4 (2008): 382. Print. Thomas Pogge’s Global Resources Dividend: a Critique and an Alternative. Sage, 2006. Internet resource. Read More