Theories of global justice are often criticised for being ineffective or unrealisable. The aim of this interdisciplinary thesis is to examine whether this motivational criticism holds regarding Singer’s Principle and Pogge’s theory of global egalitarian justice. First, I will show that the effectiveness argument is unconvincing: the underlying effectiveness criterion is either incoherent or not defined, and existing effectiveness predictions are empirically unsatisfactory. Second, I will analyse whether Singer’s interactional Principle satisfies the ‘ought implies can’ (OIC) criterion, which holds that obligations must be within the capacities of individuals. Having discussed the rationale and standard of the OIC criterion, I will show that the philosophical literature does not offer a convincing empirical justification of possibility evaluations. Drawing on psychological explanations of moral heroism, I will conclude that compliance with Singer’s Principle is possible for ordinary persons, i.e. that ‘every person is a hero in waiting’. Third, turning to the feasibility of Pogge’s theory of global egalitarian justice, I will discuss how the standard, time-frame, weight and rationale of the feasibility criterion should be defined. Based on psychological and sociological explanations about moral behaviour, social norms and identity, I will evaluate the empirical arguments advanced in the philosophical literature. In addition, I will consider how the long-term trends of globalisation are likely to influence the role of nationality, identity and global institutions. I will conclude that Pogge’s theory of egalitarian global justice is conditionally feasible, i.e. if we assume that domestic egalitarian justice is feasible. This implies that nationalism will not necessarily play a dominant role during the centuries to come. Overall, possibility and feasibility evaluations remain uncertain and partly subjective. I will thus argue that a burden of proof should be established to limit the negative effects of false evaluations.

The purpose of this thesis is to contrast the academic discussion on whether the affluent countries have a responsibility or not to provide food aid for the LDCs, to the views of food aid recipients. In addition to the issue of responsibility I also discuss the responsibilities of individuals contra governments, and what type of aid (if any) that is best to ensure food security. In order to gather information on the recipients’ points of views I have conducted a minor field study in The Gambia and interviewed former food aid recipients. In the academic discussion Thomas Pogge, Peter Singer, Dale Jamieson and David Miller are represented. The results of the field study shows that most of the recipients argue that the affluent countries in the world have a moral responsibility to assist the LDCs since they have the ability to assist.In contrast to the academic discussion, it becomes clear that the interviewees base their arguments on a different moral foundation than some of the theorists, and that they have different perspective on how to eradicate poverty and ensure food security.

Hunger currently plagues over one billion people around the world, leaving mainly women, children and rural communities in post-colonial developing countries unable to obtain their most basic need for nutrition. The fundamental human right to food is found to be a complex human right involving a combination of both positive and negative duties by states and international institutions in order for its guarantee. Hunger is not only remediable but is highly preventable. Main causal factors of hunger are outlined, with a focus on Thomas Pogge’s claim that coercive international institutions are largely responsible for world poverty. In this way, global institutions are responsible not to cause harm in their economic policies and unfair trade rules in order for individuals to obtain economic access to food and thus remedy their hunger.

With over 30 million people infected with HIV today, it has become an epidemic. Without a cure, HIV continues to be a threat to health and development. In 1994, the TRIPS Agreement, administered by the World Trade Organization came into effect. The Agreement which aims inter-alia to increase patenting in order to promote research and development has been questioned in it's effects on affordable access to HIV medications in the least-developed and developing countries. In this thesis, the TRIPS Agreement's purposes are thus analysed according to two ethical theories and their modern versions, deontology and utilitarianism/consequentialism. This analysis is made in order to seek the ethical responsibilities that the World Trade Organization has in relation to the TRIPS Agreement. The thesis findings conclude through the careful consideration of each ethical theories, and by asking additional questions than those offered in the theories, that the WTO has the ethical responsibility to reform the TRIPS Agreement so as to, at the least, not include pharmaceutical products.

Submitted by Silvana Teresinha Dornelles Studzinski (sstudzinski) on 2016-08-22T19:42:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Fabrício José Rodrigues de Lemos_.pdf: 1128559 bytes, checksum: b0f111c3f1defefc8a80daa19003f118 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-22T19:42:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Fabrício José Rodrigues de Lemos_.pdf: 1128559 bytes, checksum: b0f111c3f1defefc8a80daa19003f118 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-06-30 / Nenhuma / O filósofo norte-americano John Rawls possui o grande mérito de revitalizar as discussões sobre justiça com a publicação de sua obra A theory of justice, de 1971. Nela, lançou base à teoria de justiça como equidade, sendo que, desde então, muito se comentou acerca das responsabilidades morais das entidades e indivíduos no plano doméstico. Em um artigo publicado em 1993 e, em 1999, transformado na obra Law of peoples and the public reason revisited, Rawls ampliou o escopo de suas preocupações e dissertou acerca das responsabilidades dos povos uns para os outros. Nas últimas duas décadas, a teoria de justiça global consolidou-se como um legítimo campo de indagações filosóficas, que visa possibilitar uma melhor compreensão das relações globais e do ambiente globalizado: as profundas modificações oriundas da mudança do paradigma westfaliano em razão da interconectividade e do aumento da complexidade das relações no plano global levaram críticos como Thomas Pogge a se questionar acerca da nova dinâmica mundial. A assunção de responsabilidades, tanto estatais e corporativas quanto as individuais, fazem parte da temática. Nesse sentido, com método de pesquisa eminentemente bibliográfico e documental, partindo da teoria rawlsiana, a dissertação visa demonstrar de que maneira essa mudança de paradigma ocorreu, tendo como referenciais teóricos tanto John Rawls quanto um dos maiores expoentes da teoria de justiça global, o filósofo alemão, atualmente radicado nos Estados Unidos, Thomas Pogge. Assim, a dissertação apresentará as mais recentes formulações teoréticas acerca do que pode ser chamado de justiça global e investigará as críticas e os avanços da obra de Pogge em relação ao pensamento de Rawls. / The American philosopher John Rawls has the great merit of revitalizing justice discussions with the publication of his 1971 work A theory of justice. In it, he gave base to theory of justice as fairness, and, since then, much was said about the moral responsibilities of organizations and individuals in domestic field. In an article published in 1993 and, in 1999, transformed in the work Law of peoples and the public reason revisited, Rawls expanded the scope of his concerns and lectured about the responsibilities of peoples to each other. In the last two decades, the global justice theory has established itself as a legitimate field of philosophical inquiry, which aims to enable a better understanding of global relations and the global environment: the profound changes arising from the change of the westphalian paradigm due to the interconnectivity and the increasing complexity of relationships globally, led critics like Thomas Pogge to wonder about the new world dynamics. The intake of responsibilities, both state and corporate, as well of the individual, are all part of the theme. In this sense, with the research method of eminently bibliographic research and documental, from the starting point of Rawlsian theory, the dissertation aims to demonstrate how this paradigm shift occurred, with the theoretical references of both John Rawls as of one of the greatest exponents of the global justice theory, the German philosopher, currently living in the United States, Thomas Pogge. Thus, the dissertation will present the latest theoretical formulations on what can be called global justice and will investigate the critiques and advances of Pogge's work in relation to Rawls‟s thinking.

No description available.

This essay focus on the normative debate between cosmopolitanism and statism in the context of global distributive justice. The notion of basic structure and negative rights examines separately in two questions to understand distributive justice as a global subject rather than only national. Statists as Rawls holds the position that global distributive justice prerequisite a basic structure with coercive instrument. Pogge as cosmopolitan arguments for the existence of global basic structure, by addressing inequalities in real-world politics, in the form of negative rights violation. The aim of this study is to justify global distributive justice on cosmopolitan duties, based on normative political theory, reflective equilibrium, and conceptual analysis. The main issue is formulated into two questions in the following: • Does reciprocity constitute a global basic structure that presupposes resource distribution? • Can self-respect as foundation of rights justify global distributive justice? I do this first by analyzing the concept of basic structure, based on the notion reciprocity. This is to identify the basic structure of the global system that prerequisite global distributive justice. Second, I analyze Pogge’s formulation of negative rights as cosmopolitan rights, to modify them to a positive concept of rights. This is in purpose to avoid the libertarian counterargument presented by Narveson, that negative rights fail as a ground of cosmopolitan duties. I show first that coercion is not a necessary condition, but only sufficient for the basic structure. Thus, the global basic structure exists and prerequisite distributive justice, based on reciprocity. Unlike the national basic structure of coercive instrument, the global basic structure grounds on several global threats and challenges that tie all nations as alternative concept of coercion. Second, I show that cosmopolitan duties can be grounded on positive rights. I do this through the notion of self-respect and deontological ethics, which success to avoid the libertarian critique of cosmopolitan duties.