Barbara MacKinnon, Andrew Fiala - Ethics_ Theory and Contemporary Issues-Cengage Learning (2017)

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

costs and benefits of doing something else or of to imply that there should be no gratuitous cruelty
doing nothing. Involved in this utilitarian calculation such as would follow from malicious intentions. This
are two elements: one assesses the likely costs and moves us into discussion of the conduct of a war,
benefits, and the other weighs their relative value. the second area covered by the principles of just war
The first requires historical and empirical informa- theory.
tion, whereas the second involves ethical evalua-
tions. In making such evaluations, we might well Jus in Bello
compare lives that are likely to be saved with lives
lost, for example. But how do we compare the value Even if a war were fought for a just cause and by
of freedom and self-determination, or a way of life a legitimate authority, with the prospect of achiev-
with the value of a life itself? How do we factor in ing more good than harm, as a last resort only, and
the long-term impacts of war, including the possibil- with the proper intention, it still would not be fully
ity of post-traumatic stress for soldiers and civilians? just if it were not conducted justly or in accordance
Moreover, there is the difficulty of assessing costs with certain principles or moral guidelines. The jus
and benefits with regard to a complex and chaotic in bello part of the just war theory consists of sev-
activity such as fighting a war. eral principles.

Last Resort The just war theory holds that war Proportionality The principle of proportionality
should be a last resort. Military interventions are stipulates that in the conduct of the conflict, vio-
extremely costly in terms of suffering, loss of life, lence should be focused on limited objectives. No
and other destruction, so other means must be con- more force than necessary should be used. And the
sidered first. They need not all be tried first, for some force or means used should be proportionate to the
will be judged useless beforehand. However, nonvi- importance of the particular objective for the cause
olent means should be attempted, at least those that as a whole. This principle is obviously similar to the
are judged to have a chance of achieving the goal principle of proportionality discussed previously in
specified by the just cause. Negotiations, threats, thinking about jus ad bellum; however, within the
and boycotts are examples of such means. When jus in bello consideration of proportionality, the cost–
is enough finally enough? When have these mea- benefit analysis is focused on limited war aims and
sures been given sufficient trial? There is always not on the question of the war itself.
something more that could be tried. This is a mat-
ter of prudential judgment and therefore always Discrimination Just warriors should not intention-
uncertain.8 ally attack noncombatants and nonmilitary targets.
While this principle sounds straightforward, there are
Right Intention Military action should be directed complex issues to sort out in terms of what counts
to the goal set by the cause and to the eventual as a nonmilitary target or who is a noncombatant.
goal of peace. Thus, wars fought to satisfy hatred Are roads, bridges, and hospitals that are used in the
and bloodlust or to obtain wealth are unjustified. war effort military targets? The general consensus is
The focus on intentions is a deontological element in that the roads and bridges are targets if they contrib-
the jus ad bellum consideration. Recall that Kant’s ute directly and in significant ways to the military
deontological theory focused on the intention behind effort, but that hospitals are not legitimate targets.
an act (what Kant called the “good will” and the The principle to be used in making this distinction
nature of the maxims of action). In thinking about is the same for the people as for the things. Those
going to war, this principle would remind us that people who contribute directly are combatants, and
we ought to intend good things even as we employ those who do not are not combatants. There is some
violent means. The right intention principle seems vagueness here. Is a soldier at home on leave a
legitimate target? One writer suggests that persons

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

who are engaged in doing what they do ordinarily but unintended and accidental result of a legitimate
as persons are noncombatants, while those who war aim. Not only must the noncombatants not be
perform their functions specifically for the war effort directly targeted but also the number of them likely
are combatants.9 Thus, those who grow and provide to be injured when a target is attacked must not be
food would be noncombatants, whereas those who disproportionately great compared to the signifi-
make or transport the military equipment would be cance of the target. Thus if a bomb goes astray and
combatants. kills some children, this could be permitted by the
principle of double effect if the intended target was
Note, too, that although we also hear the term a legitimate one, if the numbers harmed were mini-
innocent civilians in such discussions, it is noncom- mal, and if the death of the children was not directly
batants who are supposed to be out of the fight and intended. In such a case, these children would be
not people who are judged on some grounds to be described as collateral damage, that is, as harms
“innocent” in a deeper moral sense. Soldiers fight- that are accidental and unintended.
ing unwillingly might be thought to be innocent but
are nevertheless combatants. Those behind the lines Intrinsically Evil Means A final concern of jus in
spending time verbally supporting the cause are not bello is a strictly deontological prohibition on the
totally innocent, yet they are noncombatants. The use of means that are viewed as being evil in them-
danger of using the term innocents in place of non- selves (or mala in se, as this is expressed in Latin).
combatants is that it also allows some to say that One obvious inherently evil act is rape. Rape has
no one living in a certain country is immune because long been a weapon of war, employed by conquer-
they are all supporters of their country and so not ing armies as a way of degrading and terrorizing a
innocent. However, this is contrary to the traditional conquered people. But just warriors ought not engage
understanding of the principle of discrimination. in rape. We should also prohibit slavery as a means
of warfare—for example, forcing captured enemies
One way of describing the discrimination prin- to engage in hard labor or using them as human
ciple is to say that noncombatants should have shields. We might also think that the use of poisons—
immunity from harm. The idea of noncombatant including poison gas—is intrinsically wrong. And
immunity says that noncombatants should not be most just war accounts maintain that torture is intrin-
intentionally harmed. Combatants are not immune sically wrong, although (as we shall see) in recent
because they are a threat. Thus, when someone is years there has been an open debate about the moral-
not or is no longer a threat, as when they have sur- ity of torture in American war-making. To say that
rendered or are incapacitated by injury, then they these things are wrong in themselves creates a deon-
are not to be regarded as legitimate targets. The dis- tological prohibition on such weapons and actions:
crimination principle does not require that no non- just warriors may not use such weapons even if they
combatants be injured or killed, but only that they might work to produce good outcomes.
not be the direct targets of attack. Although directly
targeting and killing civilians may have a positive According to just war theory, then, for a war or
effect on a desired outcome, this would not be justi- military intervention to be justified, certain condi-
fied. The principle of discrimination is a deontologi- tions for going to war must be satisfied, and the
cal principle that stipulates a duty not to deliberately conduct in the war must follow certain principles
target noncombatants. or moral guidelines. We could say that if any of the
principles are violated, that a war is unjust, or we
Nonetheless, some noncombatants are harmed could say that it was unjust in this regard but not in
in modern warfare—as bombs go astray and bat- some other aspects. Just war ideas have become part
tles rage within cities. Noncombatant harms can be of national and international law, including the U.S.
permitted by application of the principle of double Army Rules for Land Warfare and the UN Charter. Its
effect (also discussed in Chapter 10). Noncomba-
tant harms can be permitted if they are the foreseen

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

principles appeal to common human reason and both or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence
consequentialist and non-consequentialist concerns. an audience.” The FBI defines terrorism as, “the
unlawful use of force or violence against persons or
Realists will maintain that the moral limits property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
imposed by the just war theory can get in the way of civilian population, or any segment thereof, in fur-
victory and the goal of establishing power and therance of political or social objectives.”10
supremacy. Pacifists will maintain that the just war
theory is too permissive. Pacifists might reject, for By combining these definitions, we see that ter-
example, the way that the doctrine of double effect rorism is, first of all, a particular kind of violence
allows noncombatants to be harmed. To evaluate with particular aims and goals. The more immedi-
realism, pacifism, and the just war theory, you must ate goal is to create fear. This is why civilians sim-
think about how you evaluate the various conse- ply going about their daily routines are targeted
quentialist and deontological principles and ideas at random. The more distant goals vary. Terrorists
appealed to by each approach. Let’s apply these may use such violence to achieve some political
principles to some current issues. goal such as independence from a larger national
unit or to fight back against occupying armies or
For more chapter resources and to protest against particular injustices. A terrorist
activities, go to MindTap. may be motivated by religious or political ideology.
Although we often read about Islamic militants
CURRENT ISSUES employing terror tactics, it is important to note that
Terrorism terrorism can be employed by people from a variety
of religions, and it can be used by secularly minded
Terrorism would be condemned by pacifists, along political groups. Christians have employed terror
with other acts of killing. Just war theory would con- tactics (as in the struggles in Northern Ireland or as
demn terrorism that kills noncombatants as violating in the antiapartheid violence in South Africa). And
the jus in bello principle of discrimination. Realists Marxist revolutionaries have employed terrorism in
may argue that terrorism is acceptable if it works as pursuit of atheistic and communistic goals.11 One
a strategy. could argue that the Ku Klux Klan used terrorism
to subjugate the black population in the American
We can describe an act of violence as terrorism South. And black militants in the 1960s advo-
when this violent act causes or intends to cause cated terrorism against white supremacy. One could
widespread terror. Usually this terrifying act has a argue that Native Americans used terrorism against
political goal (although there may be nihilistic ter- the white settlers of the American West. And one
rorists who blow up things just for fun). Some could argue that colonial powers used terror tactics
maintain that terrorism is a politically loaded term, against the Natives. And so on. Any time there is
employed to denigrate one’s enemies. Some say that an attempt to manipulate a political situation by
one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom applying indiscriminate force, it is possible that
fighter. But the common element in a definition of there is terrorism. We might even suspect that the
terrorism is the use of attacks on noncombatants. use of firebombing and atomic bombing during the
The first known use of the term terrorism was dur- Second World War was a sort of terrorism—terror
ing the French Revolution for those who, like Maxi- bombing that aimed to force the enemy to surren-
milien Robespierre, used violence on behalf of a der by indiscriminately bombing civilian population
state. Only later was the term used to categorize vio- centers.
lence against a state. The U.S. Code of Justice (Title
22, section 2656f(d)) defines terrorism as “pre- Some terrorists commit suicide while killing oth-
meditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated ers. We hear quite a bit about Muslim terrorists who
against noncombatant targets by subnational groups employ the tactic of suicide attack. But we should

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

note that suicide attacks have been employed by a wrong. Terrorism would be condemned in this way
variety of religious (and nonreligious) groups. The by pacifists, who maintain that all violence is wrong.
Japanese kamikaze pilots of World War II were, for Pacifists would also maintain that a war against ter-
example, suicide attackers (although since they rorism is also wrong, since pacifists maintain that
attacked military targets, they may not be consid- war is wrong. Pacifists may also view terrorism as an
ered terrorists). Indeed, we might note that those example of what is wrong with war and violence—
American soldiers who launched themselves on the it tends to spread toward the deliberate targeting of
beach of Normandy on D-Day also were involved noncombatants. Moreover, pacifists might point out
in a kind of suicidal attack—although again, such that terrorism produces backlash and escalation,
a military onslaught is not terrorism. Suicidal ter- which only tends to beget more violence.
rorism is especially frightening, however, because
the suicide bomber is not subject to a rational cal- Could there be an ethical justification of ter-
culus of deterrence. The suicidal bomber is willing rorism? The reasoning that supports terrorism is
to die and wants to kill others in order to produce most often basically consequentialist. This is con-
terror. Most suicide bombers are young (as are most nected with the realist approach to the justification
soldiers) and thus may be more idealistic and eas- of violence, which holds that the end justifies the
ily influenced and manipulated. While some blame means. If one supported this type of reasoning, then
fundamentalist preaching and religious schools one would want to know whether, in fact, the ben-
for the rise of suicidal terrorism, those who have efits outweighed the harm and suffering caused by
investigated the background of known terrorists the means. One could do empirical studies to see
find that most of them are at least middle class and whether terrorism actually produces desired out-
most often well educated.12 Some terrorists are more comes. Did the terror bombing of Japan during World
rational in their goals than others, in having suf- War II result in the surrender of the Japanese? Did
ficient historical and political sense to know what the September 11 attacks bring down the U.S. gov-
will and will not work. In other cases, it seems that ernment or change its international behavior? Did
terrorists simply strike out in frustration, not caring terror attacks on American military forces in Iraq
about the long-term strategic consequences of their and Afghanistan lead Americans to retreat? These
actions. sorts of questions point toward the primary realist
concern, which is the prudential and strategic appli-
Terrorists seem to lack the ability to empathize cation of power.
with the innocent victims of their attacks. Terror-
ists may demonize entire nations and peoples, kill- One might, however, question the consequential-
ing out of hatred. But terrorists may also be engaged ist nature of realist reasoning by appealing to the
in a consequentialist calculation that has much in just war theory’s ideas about noncombatant immu-
common with the thinking of realism. From a realist nity and discrimination. Indiscriminate violence can
perspective, there is nothing inherently wrong with be rejected on realist grounds as simply being an
targeting innocent civilians for attack. And if one is inefficient use of power and resources. But in the
on the losing end of a military conflict, it might be just war tradition, the principle of discrimination is
necessary to resort to terror attacks as a way of con- a non-consequentialist or deontological prohibition.
tinuing the fight. Those who resort to terror may be Noncombatants cannot be intentionally or directly
motivated by political or religious ideology. But they targeted, their deaths being used to send a message
may also feel they have no other way to influence to others (no matter the importance of justification
the state of affairs than to resort to terrorism. of the cause for which we are fighting). International
law also condemns terrorism. The Geneva Conven-
In evaluating terrorism, we might reject it out- tions, including the fourth (adopted on August 12,
right as a form of unjustified killing. From this 1949—more than sixty years ago), enunciated
standpoint, terrorism is like murder—by definition principles that aim to protect civilian populations

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

from the worst effects of war. These conventions of Pakistani sovereignty. When he was killed, he
hold that civilians should not be directly attacked. was accompanied by his wives and children. He was
From the standpoint of international law and the not actively engaged in military operations. Some
just war theory, terrorism is a war crime. claim that he was unarmed, with a recent book by
one of the Navy SEALs involved in the raid main-
Targeted Killing and Drones taining that Bin Laden was shot in the head as he
peered down a dark hallway and again in the chest
Terrorists are not necessarily part of any recognized as he lay convulsing in a pool of his own blood.13
state. Often they are loosely affiliated, acting alone The SEALs feared bin Laden could have had a booby
or organized in small cells. They may be motivated trap or suicide vest at his disposal. President Obama
by radical ideology read online or viewed in videos. explained in a speech to the nation celebrating the
And terrorists do not declare war or put on uniforms death of bin Laden that there was a firefight, which
that distinguish them as combatants. For these rea- led to bin Laden being killed.
sons, some argue that the weapons and rules of
traditional just war theory may not apply. Others Whether bin Laden posed an active threat to the
argue that terrorists are simply criminals and that Navy SEAL team that attacked him or not, Obama
domestic and international law enforcement should and others maintain that the killing of bin Laden
be employed to bring them to justice. was justified. Obama explained that bin Laden was
responsible for killing Americans and that he was
Should terrorists be viewed as criminals, who also, as Obama explained, “a mass murderer of
ought to be captured if possible and put on trial Muslims.” Obama concluded, “[H]is demise should
so that they might be punished? Or are terrorists be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human
enemy combatants who may be killed or captured dignity.”14 Eric Holder, the attorney general of the
without a trial and held as prisoners of war until an United States, further explained, “The operation
eventual peace treaty is concluded? Or are terrorists against bin Laden was justified as an act of national
unlawful combatants whose actions and ideology self-defense. It’s lawful to target an enemy com-
put them outside of the established moral and legal mander in the field.”15 Critics objected that the killing
framework for dealing with enemy combatants? The was a violation of international law and that Ameri-
term unlawful combatant has been employed by the cans had an obligation to work to try to extradite bin
United States to indicate that the normal rules for Laden and put him on trial. Critics might also object
dealing with criminals and enemy fighters do not to Holder’s claim that bin Laden was a “commander
apply to those suspected of terrorism. For example, in the field.” Is a terrorist who is resting at home in
American policy is that terrorist suspects can be the middle of the night a commander in the field?
killed without trial. And when captured, terrorism
suspects have been held without trial in extraterrito- The justification of the killing of bin Laden points
rial prisons such as the American prison at Guanta- toward the broader question of whether it is morally
namo Bay in Cuba (discussed in Chapter 7). Terror and legal permissible to employ targeted killing as
suspects have been tortured. And Americans have a method of warfare. The larger question from the
engaged in targeted killing of terrorists, hunting standpoint of the just war theory is whether it is per-
them down in foreign lands (often in violation of the missible to target an enemy commander or other sol-
sovereignty of foreign nations). dier who is not actively engaged in fighting. The just
war idea of discrimination may encourage us to dis-
The most famous case of targeted killing is that of tinguish between soldiers who are actively fighting
Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was the leader and those who are in hospitals, on leave, or engaged
of Al Qaeda at the time of the September 11 attacks. in nonlethal support operations. One reason to avoid
He was killed by an American military attack on targeting soldiers behind the lines is to keep violence
his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 2, contained on the battlefield. But some may argue
2011. The operation that killed him was in violation

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

that this convenient distinction between combatants been, and there’s no doubt civilians were killed that
who are fighting and soldiers on leave does not hold shouldn’t have been. . . . We have to take responsi-
in the war on terrorism where there are no speci- bility where we’re not acting appropriately, or just
fied fields of battle and where terrorists themselves made mistakes.”18
refuse to adhere to the distinction between combat-
ants and noncombatants. A realist would have no Another advantage of using drones is that drones
problem with targeting a terrorist mastermind or a are cheaper than manned aircraft. And they do not
political leader, except for pragmatic concerns about put pilots at risk. However, they return us to the
potential blowback from such attacks. The just war problem of who counts as a combatant. Would the
theory may also permit assassinations of terrorist remote control drone pilots, who fly these drones
masterminds and political leaders, if such attacks are from facilities based in the United States and who
discriminate and proportional. One concern, how- thus never come near the battlefield, be considered
ever, is that by employing targeted assassination, “combatants”? One worry along these lines is that
the door is open for similar attacks coming from the remote control piloting of drones extends our idea of
other side. Could Al Qaeda make similar arguments what counts as “the battlefield” in a way that under-
in attempting to justify attacks on American political mines the just war effort to constrain violence to a
or military leaders? The presumption here is that the confined space of battle.
“good guys”—those who fight justly and who have
a just cause—are permitted to employ targeted kill- Defenders of drones will argue that they are an
ing, while the “bad guys” are not. essential response to terrorism. The war on terrorism
is not a traditional war, with armies fighting each
The issue of targeted killing has come to prom- other on clearly marked battlefields. Terrorists do not
inence lately with regard to the use of unmanned wear uniforms. Indeed, they try to blend into to the
drones. Drone aircraft, piloted by remote control, local populace. And they employ mundane objects
can attack terrorist suspects around the world, easily and camouflaged devices as part of their weaponry:
crossing borders. Drones have been used to attack car bombs, suicide vests, and most notoriously com-
targets in a variety of countries. One advantage of mercial jet airliners. Perhaps the rules have changed
drones is that they are more precise than the use for a war on terrorism, which leads to a changed
of other sorts of bombing, allowing for more dis- evaluation of the use of targeted killing. And since
criminate and proportional killing. However, civil- terrorists plan their operations in cities and vil-
ian noncombatants have been killed by the use of lages around the globe, it might be necessary to use
drones. One estimate from the Bureau of Investiga- drones to cross borders and kill terrorists where they
tive Journalism claims the United States has killed are doing their planning.
at least five thousand people in Yemen, Afghani-
stan, Somalia, and Pakistan with drone strikes (as of Another problem arises when we think about the
spring 2016), including at least five hundred to six justification of targeted killing of terrorists—whether
hundred civilians.16 At one point, early in the drone by drones or by other means—and that is the ques-
program in Pakistan, nearly half of the casualties tion of preventive violence. We might think that the
were noncombatants. But the drone program has killing of Osama bin Laden is justifiable because he
become more precise, with civilian deaths account- was responsible for terrorist attacks in the past. But
ing for only 10 to 15 percent of casualties from more the drone and targeted killing policy of the United
recent drone attacks.17 Such killing may be justifi- States allows for targeted killing of terrorists who
able on just war grounds as collateral damage. But have not themselves committed terrorism and who
they are still morally troubling. In April of 2016, may not be an imminent threat. A Justice Depart-
President Obama admitted the difficulty, saying of ment memo outlining the justification of targeted
the drone war, “It wasn’t as precise as it should have killing explains that the policy “does not require the
United States to have clear evidence that a specific
attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

in the immediate future.”19 In other words, it may that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruc-
be enough to be thinking about terrorism to be liable tion was a primary reason given by George W.
for targeted killing. Such an idea might make sense Bush as a cause for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
from a standpoint that advocates preventive war- The Bush administration maintained that the inva-
fare, as discussed previously. If the U.S. invasion of sion was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from
Iraq was justified as a war aiming to prevent Iraq obtaining weapons of mass destruction, especially
from obtaining or using weapons of mass destruc- nuclear weapons. The issue of weapons of mass
tion to terrorize the world, couldn’t a drone attack on destruction remains a concern with regard to Iran
a terrorist in Yemen be justified by the same logic? and North Korea. International sanctions against
A defender of the drone program will argue that it Iran were directed against Iran’s nuclear program.
is better to prevent terrorist attacks before they hap- And the Korean peninsula remains tense due to
pen. But a critic will argue that it is a disproportion- North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. In 2013, there
ate escalation of hostilities. was evidence that the Syrian government had used
chemical weapons against rebels. This was widely
The discussion of drones has become even more condemned by the international community, leading
contentious due to the government policy of allowing to a change in the U.S. policy toward the civil war in
targeted killing of American citizens. The Department Syria. As a result of the chemical weapons attacks,
of Justice memo mentioned earlier was used to jus- the United States began actively arming rebel forces
tify the killing of American citizens who are actively in Syria, while also threatening a military strike on
involved in Al Qaeda and who are residing in foreign the country.
countries. This policy was employed in the killing of
four Americans in Yemen and Pakistan in 2011.20 The category of weapons of mass destruc-
Among those killed was a radical Muslim cleric, tion usually includes biological, chemical, and
Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are living
attended college in Colorado. He was killed along microorganisms that can be used as weapons to
with his son and another American associate. The maim, incapacitate, and kill. Among these weap-
U.S. government claims that Al-Awlaki was actively ons is anthrax, which infects either the skin or the
involved in planning terrorist operations against the lungs. Breathing only a small amount of anthrax
United States and thus that his killing was justified. causes death in 80 to 90 percent of cases. Small-
Such a justification might appeal to just war ideas pox, cholera, and bubonic or pneumonic plague are
about the killing of aggressive combatants. Or tar- other biological agents that might be used. Genetic
geted killing might be justified by realists as part of engineering may also be used to make more vir-
the struggle for supremacy in the world of power and ulent strains. There have been no proven usages
politics. Critics have argued that it is illegal for the of biological weapons in modern wars. One hun-
government to execute American citizens without dred sixty-three states have ratified the Biological
attempting to capture them and put them on trial, Weapons Convention (1975), which prohibits the
perhaps maintaining that domestic and international production, stockpiling, and use of such agents as
law enforcement standards should be employed. But weapons.
President Obama defended the drone program by
maintaining that it was part of a just war against ter- Chemical weapons include blister agents such as
rorism, which is discriminate and proportional in its mustard gas, which is relatively easy and cheap to
approach to targeted killing.21 produce. It produces painful blisters, and it incapaci-
tates rather than kills. Iraq used mustard gas in its
Weapons of Mass Destruction 1980 to 1988 war with Iran as well as some type
of chemical weapon on the Kurdish inhabitants of
One of the central concerns of the war on terrorism Halabja in 1988. Through low-level repeated air-
is the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Recall drops, as many as five thousand defenseless people

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

in that town were killed. Phosgene is a choking Since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
agent, and hydrogen cyanide “prevents transfer of no other nation has ever employed nuclear weap-
oxygen to the tissues.” Large quantities of the lat- ons in wartime. Perhaps we learned a moral lesson
ter, however, would be needed to produce significant from the sheer destructive power of these bombings.
effects.22 Hydrogen cyanide is a deadly poison gas, But for many decades after World War II, we con-
as is evidenced by its use in executions in the gas tinued to stockpile weapons. The world’s nuclear
chamber. Sarin is called a nerve “gas,” but it is actu- arsenals grew to include unimaginable destructive
ally a liquid. It affects the central nervous system power throughout the Cold War. Recognizing that
and is highly toxic. In 1995, the Japanese cult group nuclear weapons were pointing toward the nihilis-
Aum Shinrikyo deployed sarin in the Tokyo sub- tic conclusion of mutually assured destruction, the
way. It sickened thousands and killed twelve people. nuclear powers have attempted to limit nuclear arse-
Sarin is the gas employed in attacks in Syria that nals. There have been many nuclear weapons trea-
killed more than 1,000 people. Chemical weapons ties designed to limit nuclear stockpiles and prevent
were also used in both world wars. For example, proliferation. Nations known to have nuclear weap-
in World War I, the Germans used mustard gas and ons now include China, France, India, Israel, North
chlorine, and the French used phosgene. Although Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and
it might not be usually classified as the use of a the United States. Although some dream of complete
chemical weapon, in 1945 American B-29 bomb- disarmament, we are a far from a nuclear free world.
ers “dropped 1665 tons of napalm-filled bombs on On the other hand, there has been some progress
Tokyo, leaving almost nothing standing over 16 made regarding the agreement to reduce nuclear
square miles.” One hundred thousand people were stockpiles. On April 8, 2010, in a new START treaty,
killed in this raid, not from napalm directly but from the US and Russia agreed to limit the number of
the fires that it caused.23 One hundred and eighty- nuclear warheads in each arsenal to 1,550.26
eight nations are party to the Chemical Weapons
Convention (1994). Because such weapons can be The global community continues to be concerned
made by private groups in small labs, however, veri- about nuclear proliferation. There is a worrisome
fying international compliance with the convention global black market in nuclear materials and know-
is highly problematic. how. These weapons are difficult but not impossible
to make. And many fear so-called “loose nukes,”
Nuclear weapons, including both fission and nuclear weapons that are not carefully guarded (for
fusion bombs, are the deadliest weapons. They pro- example in the former Soviet Union) and that are
duce powerful explosions and leave radiation behind sold on the black market to terrorists. There was an
that causes ongoing damage. The effects were well attempt to confine possession of nuclear weapons to
demonstrated by the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima the original nuclear powers: the United States, the
and Nagasaki in August 1945. It is estimated that UK, France, the Soviet Union (now Russia), and
150,000 people perished in these two attacks and China. But in recent decades nuclear weaponry has
their immediate aftermath, with an eventual total of been developed by Israel and India, with Pakistan
nearly 300,000 deaths caused by these bombs (as joining the nuclear club in 1998. North Korea suc-
survivors died of subsequent maladies attributed to cessfully detonated a nuclear device in 2006 and
the bombing).24 Among the casualties at Hiroshima claimed to have tested a hydrogen bomb in early
were American citizens—including American prison- 2016, an act that provoked outrage in the inter-
ers of war and Japanese Americans who were unable national community. Other states have agreed not
to escape from Japan once the war began. Some to pursue nuclear weapons by signing on to the
3,000 Japanese Americans were in Hiroshima when Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At least one state
the bomb was dropped; 800 to 1,000 survived and has voluntarily given up its nuclear weapons: South
returned to the United States.25 Africa dismantled its nuclear weapons in the 1990s.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

In calling these nuclear, chemical, and biologi- to evaluate the use of weapons of mass destruc-
cal devices weapons of mass destruction, we imply tion. The principle of discrimination tells us that it is
that they are of a different order of magnitude than morally wrong to deliberately target innocent civil-
the usual means of modern warfare. It is clear why ians with firebombs, nuclear bombs, or chemical
nuclear weapons are labeled in this way, but it is not weapons. And massive destruction caused by these
so clear why the others are. Even when used some- weapons might fail the proportionality test as well.
what extensively in World War I, “fewer than 1 per- One wonders, however, whether ordinary bombs
cent of battle deaths” during that war were caused and bullets that explode and kill many more people
by gas, and only “2 percent of those gassed during than biological or chemical weapons are less objec-
the war died, compared with 24 percent of those tionable. During the Second World War, more civil-
struck by bullets, artillery shells, or shrapnel.”27 For ians were killed by conventional bombs than were
gas to work well, there can be no wind or sun, and killed by atomic bombs. And land mines continue
it must be delivered by an aircraft flying at very low to be a cause of harm—left behind in battlefields
altitude. If delivered by bombs, the weapons would to harm civilians after conflicts end. Nevertheless,
be incinerated before they could become effective. people seem to fear biological and chemical weap-
Today’s gas masks and antibiotics and other pre- ons more than conventional weapons. Possibly it is
ventives and treatments lessen the lethality of such the thought of being killed by something invisible—
weapons even more. In 1971, smallpox accidentally radiation sickness or poison gas—that makes them
got loose in Kazakhstan but killed only three peo- so feared and is behind the desire to call them weap-
ple; and in 1979, a large amount of anthrax was ons of mass destruction, with the implication that
released through the explosion of a Soviet plant, but they are morally abhorrent and are intrinsically evil.
only sixty-eight people were killed.28 There have
been subsequent scares with regard to chemical and War Crimes and Universal Human Rights
biological agents. In 2001, Americans were fright-
ened by anthrax scares, as suspicious white powder One of the difficulties of thinking about the moral-
was sent by the mail. In 2013, federal authorities ity of war is that, as the realists may insist, there
arrested domestic terrorists who sent letters laced is no international authority that could regulate
with the poison ricin through the mail to judges and behavior in war. Realists will argue that victors dis-
politicians, including one to the president. Ricin is pense so-called “victor’s justice.” Usually the term
made from castor beans and it is quite deadly: a dose victor’s justice is thought of as an accusation of
about the size of a grain of salt can cause death. unilateral and hypocritical judgment, as the victors
punish the losers, while failing to prosecute or con-
Realists would have no moral problem with demn their own unjust or immoral actions. Consider,
weapons of mass destruction, provided that they for example, a scene from the 2003 documentary
work. One concern is that such weapons are diffi- The Fog of War in which former Defense Secretary
cult to use without harming your own soldiers. The Robert S. McNamara is interviewed about his par-
wind can blow chemical and biological weapons in ticipation in the bombing of Japan during World War
the wrong direction, and nuclear weapons leave II. McNamara worked with General Curtis LeMay
deadly radiation that can harm one’s own troops. On to coordinate the bombing of Japan. In addition to
the other hand, just war theorists may argue that the atomic bomb attacks mentioned previously,
weapons of mass destruction are mala in se or evil American planes dropped incendiary bombs on a
in themselves (and so prohibited). But we need not large number of Japanese cities, causing massive
appeal to intrinsic qualities of the weapons to form a damage and killing millions. As McNamara reflects
moral critique of weapons of mass destruction. Prin- on this in the film, he acknowledges that the bomb-
ciples from the just war theory that are used to eval- ing would have been viewed as a war crime if the
uate terrorism and other warfare can be employed Americans had lost. He said that LeMay suggested,

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

“If we had lost the war, we’d all have been pros- a newly developed concept—that of genocide, the
ecuted as war criminals.” McNamara continued, deliberate effort to exterminate a people. As is well
“And I think he’s right. He . . . and, I’d say, I . . . were known, the Nazis were engaged in a genocidal cam-
behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that paign of extermination against Jews, Gypsies, and
what he was doing would be thought immoral if others. Nazi death camps were employed in an effi-
his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you cient and mechanized effort to annihilate the Jew-
lose and not immoral if you win?”29 The realist will ish people, resulting in the deaths of six million Jews
argue that this shows us that moral judgments do (out of a prior population of nine million Jews in the
not apply in wartime and that the goal is to win so German-controlled parts of Europe). This event is
that one can be the victor dispensing victor’s justice. referred to as the Holocaust. The mass extermina-
tion of civilians is a war crime and a crime against
On the other hand, there is a growing consen- humanity.
sus in the international community that moral judg-
ment should apply to behavior in war. International The idea of a crime against humanity and of war
agreements, treaties, and institutions have devel- crimes in general can be understood in relation to the
oped in the past centuries that aim to limit warfare natural law and natural rights theories discussed in
and prosecute immoral actions done in war. These Chapter 7. Certain actions violate the natural value
efforts in international law are grounded upon ideas and dignity of persons, and all human beings should
that are closely connected to ideas found in the just know this based upon a common moral sense, no
war theory—most important, the idea that civil- matter what orders they receive. The important
ians should not be targeted and the idea that certain point here is that soldiers cannot be excused for
actions—rape, for example—are always immoral. criminal behavior by claiming that they are merely
Many of the elements of the laws of war and the following orders. Principle IV of the Nuremberg trials
nature of war crimes have been developed in the stipulates, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to
various declarations of the Geneva Conventions and order of his Government or of a superior does not
in other international treaties and agreements. For relieve him from responsibility under international
example, the 1984 UN Convention against Torture, law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to
which was ratified by the United States, requires him.”31 Moreover, Principle III of the Tribunal stipu-
that all signatory nations avoid cruel, inhuman, or lated that heads of state and other political leaders
degrading treatment.30 were not excused from prosecution. The Nuremberg
trials put twenty-two Nazi leaders on trial (Hitler,
Those who violate these conventions and proto- Himmler, Goebbels, and other Nazi leaders were
cols may be held to be guilty of “war crimes.” One already dead), resulting in convictions for nineteen
important source for the conventions regarding war of them and death sentences for twelve. While the
crimes were the war crimes tribunals conducted after Nuremberg trials are viewed as an important step in
World War II—both the Nuremberg trials and the the development of war crimes tribunals and inter-
Tokyo trials. There have been questions about the national law, some still worry that they remained
legal procedures and standards of proof employed examples of victor’s justice—since there was no
in these trials. But in general, they are viewed as similar accounting for war crimes committed by the
examples of the developing moral consensus about Allied powers.32
the rules of war. The Nuremberg trials established
three categories of crimes: crimes against the peace Since Nuremberg, the international commu-
(involving aggression and preparation for war), war nity has worked to create a more impartial system
crimes (including murder, maltreatment of prison- for dealing with war crimes and crimes against
ers, etc.), and crimes against humanity (involving humanity, including the development of an Interna-
racial, religious, or political persecution of civilians). tional Criminal Court in The Hague. But egregious
The last category, crimes against humanity included attacks on civilians continue to occur, attacks that

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

are referred to as “ethnic cleansing” or genocide. network, nothing is more consistent with American
These attacks have occurred in Kosovo, in Rwanda, values than to stop them. The interrogations were
in Sudan, in Syria, and elsewhere. The international used on hardened terrorists after other efforts had
community condemns such atrocities. But it is often failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful,
at a loss as to what to do about them. Military inter- and the right thing to do.35
vention is risky—and pacifists will argue for non-
violent responses. A significant problem is whether Cheney’s justification of torture is a straightfor-
a war of intervention intended to rescue civilians wardly utilitarian justification: it works to prevent
will produce more harm than good in the long run. terrorism and should not be prohibited by a “moral
Although there is a developing international consen- value.” The Bush administration’s legal staff provided
sus about war crimes, the world is still not able to legal and moral justifications of torture. The Office
agree on strategies for responding to such crimes. of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department issued a
number of memos suggesting that certain methods
Torture of trying to extract information from prisoners sus-
pected of terrorism were not torture. The author of
Torture is viewed as a criminal activity, outlawed by a number of these memos, John Yoo, argued that
the Geneva Conventions and by other international “inflicting physical pain does not count as torture
treaties such as the UN Convention against Torture. unless the interrogator specifically intends the pain
But some have argued that torture could be justified to reach the level associated with organ failure or
in the fight against terrorism. And others in the U.S. death.”36 This definition was given to allow certain
government have sought to justify techniques that enhanced interrogation techniques while avoiding
have traditionally been viewed as torture, in part by the legal prohibition on torture. According to this
calling them “enhanced interrogations methods.” In definition, waterboarding—simulated drowning—
congressional testimony in February 2007, the direc- does not count as torture. Critics complained loudly
tor of the CIA, Michael Hayden, admitted that the that waterboarding was indeed torture and that this
United States has used waterboarding on prisoners. was not consistent with American law or interna-
Waterboarding is a technique in which a prisoner’s tional law and that the use of torture was contrary
head is strapped to a board with his face drenched in to American values.37 For example, the U.S. Uniform
water to produce a sensation of drowning. The CIA Code of Military Justice makes “cruelty, oppression,
admitted that it used waterboarding on one particular or maltreatment of prisoners a crime.”38 Senator John
terror suspect, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, 183 times; McCain—who was himself tortured as a prisoner
another suspect was waterboarded 83 times.33 These of war in Vietnam—spoke out against torture. And
prisoners were subjected to other so-called “enhanced when Barack Obama became president, he banned
interrogation techniques”: they were kept disori- the use of these “enhanced interrogation methods.”
ented, naked, and cold. We have learned that prison-
ers were slammed against walls, given suppositories, Pacifists will condemn torture as another exam-
prevented from sleeping, and kept in stress positions. ple of unjustified violence. They may also point out
The Red Cross concluded that this treatment was tor- that this episode from recent history indicates the
ture and that it was cruel, inhuman, and degrading.34 ugly logic of war—that we can end up betraying
our own values in the name of victory and power—
But the government under George W. Bush and that this shows us why war is a corrupting and
argued that this use of torture was justified. Former immoral force. Realists may nod in agreement with
Vice President Dick Cheney explained, Dick Cheney’s consequentialist justification of torture.
Realists are not opposed to using supposedly immoral
No moral value held dear by the American people means to achieve other goals. Indeed, realists may
obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to also add that our enemies are not opposed to using
spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. torture and to employing other cruel techniques,
And when an entire population is targeted by a terror

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

including beheading prisoners. Realists may argue principle. Instead of telling us when something is
that the best way to fight cruelty is to employ cruelty enough or the last thing we should try, it can be
in return. Just war theorists will not agree to that line used to prod us to go somewhat further than we
of reasoning. Instead, they may argue that torture otherwise would.
ought to be considered as one of those actions that 9. James Childress, “Just-War Theories,” Theological
are considered as evil in themselves and that are pro- Studies (1978): 427–45.
hibited by principles of jus in bello. They may argue 10. Both definitions found at “Terrorism,” National
that even if torture works, there are some things we Institute of Justice, September 12, 2011, accessed
simply ought not do in pursuit of justified causes. May 21, 2013, http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/
terrorism/
In the readings in this chapter, we have selections 11. Max Rodenbeck, “How Terrible Is It?” New York
representing pacifism and just war theory. First, we Review of Books, November 30, 2006, 35.
will read an essay by Andrew Fitz-Gibbon, a philoso- 12. Peter Bergen and Swati Pandey, “The Madrassa
pher who explains pacifism and nonviolence with Myth,” New York Times, June 14, 2005, A19.
reference to the legacies of Gandhi and King. Next, 13. Mark Owen, No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account
Michael Walzer—the leading exponent of the just war of the Mission That Killed Osama Bin Laden (New
theory—evaluates some key elements of the theory. York: Dutton, 2012).
14. “Remarks by the President on Osama Bin Laden,”
NOTES The White House, press release, May 2, 2011,
accessed May 21, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.
1. Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.psr gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/remarks-
.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf); (http://costsofwar president-osama-bin-laden
.org; www.icasualties.org; www.iraqbodycount.org; 15. Erik Kirschbaum and Jonathan Thatcher, “Concerns
and Wikipedia Raised over Shooting of Unarmed bin Laden,”
Reuters, May 4, 2011, accessed May 22, 2013,
2. William James, “The Moral Equivalent of War,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/
Popular Science Monthly, October 1910. us-binladen-legitimacy-idUSTRE74371H20110504
16. Adding low-end estimates from Bureau of Investi-
3. Martin Luther King Jr., “Beyond Vietnam” (speech gative Journalism, https://www.thebureauinvesti-
from April 4, 1967) at Martin Luther King Papers gates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/
Project (Stanford), accessed May 21, 2013, http:// (accessed April 7, 2016).
mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/ 17. Peter Bergen and Jennifer Rowland, “9 Myths about
documentsentry/doc_beyond_vietnam/ Drones and Guantanamo,” CNN, May 22, 2013,
accessed May 22, 2013, http://www.cnn.
4. “Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the com/2013/05/22/opinion/bergen-nine-myths-
Nobel Peace Prize,” The White House, press release, drones-gitmo/index.html
December 10, 2009, accessed May 21, 2013, 18. “Obama: ‘No Doubt’ U.S. Drones Have Killed
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ Civilians,” CNN, April 1, 2016, http://www.cnn
remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize .com/2016/04/01/politics/obama-isis-drone-
strikes-iran/ (accessed April 7, 2016).
5. Robert W. Tucker, The Just War (Baltimore, MD: 19. “Department of Justice White Paper,” (published by
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1960), 1. NBC News February 2013), accessed May 22,
2013, http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/
6. See Andrew Fiala, The Just War Myth (Lanham, sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), Chapter 6. 20. “Obama, in a Shift, to Limit Targets of Drone
Strikes,” New York Times, May 22, 2013, accessed
7. “Lessons of Iraq War Underscore Importance of UN
Charter—Annan,” UN News Centre, September 16,
2004, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.un.org/
apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11953&#.
UfMBmWTEo_s

8. We might consider this particular principle as what
is called a regulative rather than a substantive

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

July 26, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/ (December 1984),” Audiovisual Library of
23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in- International Law, accessed May 21, 2013,
drone-strikes.html?_r=0 http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp
21. “Obama Speech on Drone Policy,” New York Times, .html
May 23, 2013, accessed May 23, 2013, http:// 31. “Principles of the International Law Recognized in
www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/ the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and the Judg-
transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy. ment of the Tribunal, 1950,” Principle IV, at Inter-
html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 national Committee of the Red Cross, accessed
22. “Introduction to Chemical Weapons,” Federation of May 21, 2013, http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl
American Scientists, www.fas.org/cw/intro.htm .nsf/ART/390-550004?OpenDocument
23. Howard W. French, “100,000 People Perished, but 32. See Michael Biddiss, “Victors’ Justice? The Nurem-
Who Remembers?” New York Times, March 14, berg Tribunal,” History Today 45, no. 5 (1995),
2002, A4. accessed May 21, 2013, http://www.historytoday
24. John W. Dower, “The Bombed: Hiroshimas and .com/michael-biddiss/victors-justice-nuremberg-
Nagasakis in Japanese Memory,” in Hiroshima in tribunal
History and Memory, ed. Michael J. Hogan 33. Scott Shane, “Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Suspects,” New York Times, April 19, 2009,
25. Rinjir Sodei, Were We the Enemy?: American Sur- accessed June 16, 2013, http://www.nytimes.
vivors of Hiroshima (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html
1998). 34. Mark Danner, “U.S. Torture: Voices from the Black
26. U.S. State Department, “New START” http://www Sites,” New York Review of Books, April 9, 2009,
.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/index.htm (accessed http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530
July 26, 2013) 35. Dick Cheney speaking on The McLaughlin Group,
27. Gregg Easterbrook, “Term Limits, The Meaningless- May 22, 2009, accessed June 18, 2013, http://
ness of ‘WMD,’ ” New Republic, October 7, 2002, 23. www.mclaughlin.com/transcript.htm?id=725
28. Ibid. 36. David Luban, “The Defense of Torture,” New York
29. Errol Morris, The Fog of War: Transcript, accessed Review of Books, March 15, 2007, 37–40.
May 21, 2013, http://www.errolmorris.com/film/ 37. Ibid.
fow_transcript.html 38. Uniform Code of Military Justice Sec. 893, Art. 93
30. “UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, accessed May 21, 2013, http://www.au.af.mil/au/
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm

READING
Peace

ANDREW FITZ GIBBON

For more chapter resources and activities, go to MindTap.

Study Questions
1. Summarize Fitz-Gibbon’s account of the history of nonviolence.
2. How does Fitz-Gibbon describe the difference between comprehensive approaches to nonviolence and less selec-

tive approaches?
3. What are the three main types of pacifism that Fitz-Gibbon discusses?

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

Despite the predominance of war in political the notion of nonviolent resistance as a politi-
affairs, peace and nonviolence were central cal strategy. In other words, nonviolence was not
ideas behind much political activism in the twenti- merely a political technique, but the outworking of a
eth century. M. K. Gandhi was the first to use tech- deeper metaphysics.
niques of nonviolent resistance, first in South Africa
(1893–1914) and then in India (1915–1947). For Since King, nonviolence as a political tool has
Gandhi, nonviolent protest required as much cour- been developed most especially by Gene Sharp
age as warfare. The satyagrahis—those who prac- (1973a-c, 2005). Sharp analyzed different tech-
tice satyagraha, “truth force” or “love-force”—were niques for using nonviolent protest as a means of
to resist oppressive sanctions by absorbing the vio- achieving political ends. He suggested 198 different
lence of their oppressors in their own persons (2001, methods of nonviolent action in order to bring about
3ff). In time the oppressor would cease violence, social change. Peter Ackerman and Jack Duvall
having had a fill of it. He called this the “law of self- (2000) built on the pioneering work of Sharp. Ack-
sacrifice,” the “law of nonviolence,” and the “law of erman and Duvall analyzed 12 different movements
suffering.” Just as the requirement of the military is in the twentieth century which accomplished social
training in how to use violence effectively, satya- and political change by direct nonviolent action. On
grahis needed to be trained in how not to be vio- close analysis, many of the movements were not as
lent (ibid., 92 ff). Gandhi even called for an official clearly nonviolent as Ackerman and Duvall suggest.
“non-violent army” of trained volunteers numbering Such change is accomplished by seizing the initiative
the thousands who could put themselves in harmful to control a conflict to make the opposition give-in
way to end violence (ibid., 86). to demands against their will. In practice, nonvio-
lent direct action is far from “peaceful.” Nonethe-
Martin Luther King, Jr relied extensively on less, their conclusion is persuasive: nonviolent direct
Gandhi’s developed nonviolent techniques (see his action is a powerful means of social and political
“Pilgrimage to Nonviolence” in King 1986, 54–62). change. Their organization, the International Cen-
In his “My Trip to the land of Gandhi,” King says, ter on Nonviolent Conflict, through its publications
“True nonviolent resistance is not unrealistic sub- and DVDs was influential in the overthrow of Ser-
mission to evil power. It is rather a courageous con- bian leader Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, and Ukrai-
frontation of evil by the power of love, in the faith nian leader Viktor Yanukovych in 2004–2005. Their
that it is better to be a recipient of violence than techniques were extensively used in the Arab Spring
the inflictor of it, since the latter only multiplies the revolutions of 2010–2011 (see Gan, 2013, 70).
existence of violence and bitterness in the universe,
while the former may develop a sense of shame in However, some on the Left criticize nonvio-
the opponent, and thereby bring about a transforma- lent direct action as politically ineffective and not
tion and change of heart” (1986, 44). going far enough. Ward Churchill in his Pacifism as
Pathology says, “Pacifism as a strategy of achieving
King’s understanding of nonviolence led him social, political, and economic change can only lead
eventually to oppose all war and to make significant to the dead end of liberalism” (Churchill and Ryan,
protest of the Vietnam War. He said, “I have come 2007, 33). Yet, in Eastern Europe, it was just such
to the conclusion that the potential destructiveness liberalism that the masses pursued as Soviet Com-
of modern weapons of war totally rules out the pos- munism faded.
sibility of war ever serving as a negative good. If
we assume that mankind has a right to survive then Those who see nonviolence as more than a socio-
we must find an alternative to war and destruction” political strategy also have criticized the direction
(ibid., 60). Gandhi and King held in creative tension
of the notions that nonviolence was a “good,” an Andrew Fitz-Gibbon, Peace in Andrew Fiala, ed., The Bloomsbury
end in itself—something akin to love or truth—with Companion to Political Philosophy (London: Bloomsbury Publish-
ing, 2015).

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

that Sharp, Ackerman, and Duvall have taken. “positive peace.” Negative peace is the mere absence
Barry L. Gan notes a distinction between “selective of war. Positive peace has taken on a more full con-
nonviolence” and “comprehensive nonviolence” ceptualization, a condition more akin to the Jewish
(2013, 73 ff). Selective nonviolence rejects the use notion of Shalom and is a state of well-being, free
of violence for pragmatic reasons in order to accom- from violence. In different presentations, positive
plish a political aim. The “good” is not nonviolence peace is a eudemonic, or else, a loving state. Duane
itself, but rather the political goal. If violence could L. Cady says of positive peace, “the point is always
achieve the goal more effectively and quickly, then to build on and broaden our sense of community
violence would be used. However, some selective by stressing interdependence, respect, tolerance,
nonviolentists consider nonviolence as always a bet- common aspirations, and understanding” (2010, 86).
ter strategy than violence, and so make no resort to
violent tactics. Nonetheless, nonviolence is still con- Johan Galtung analyzes negative peace as: (a) the
sidered merely a tool to use toward some other goal. absence of violence of all kinds (physical and psy-
Comprehensive nonviolence is the rejection of vio- chological; (b) structural violence (violence embedded
lence in all its forms; nonviolence being considered in institutions); and (c) cultural violence (attitudes
a good in itself. A comprehensive nonviolentist will and values that tolerate harm) (1996, 31). In mov-
attempt to practice nonviolence in all aspects of per- ing the discussion of violence beyond the bounds of
sonal, social, and political life. Comprehensive non- physical violence (to psychological, structural, and
violentists reject some of the techniques suggested cultural harm), Galtung moves the discussion of
by Sharp as being inherently violent. negative peace beyond the notion of the absence of
war. Although a nation may not be at war, its citizens
Gan also suggests that between the extremes of may be subject to internal strife and various harms
selective and comprehensive nonviolence is a wide that Galtung classifies as violence. Positive peace,
spectrum of understandings and practices. He places then, is not only the absence of war together with
Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King toward the pole of com- these diverse violent harms, but also a different kind
prehensive nonviolence, and Sharp, Ackerman, and of human interaction. Michael Allen Fox suggests
Duvall toward the pole of selective nonviolence.1 that positive peace includes four aspects: (a) subjec-
tive (a state of well-being); (b) objective (a goal with
Feminism has contributed to understandings of a process to reach the goal); (c) cosmic (unity with
peace through the Ethics of Care and other feminist a larger whole—not merely peace between human
philosophical writing (see Ruddick, 1990, Noddings, beings, but with other sentient beings and with the
2003, Held, 2007). Ethicists of care argue that it is, environment); and (d) prescriptive/visionary (guiding
in part, the impersonal masculinist themes of politi- principles and outlook) (2014, 188–193).
cal philosophy and ethics (contracts, rights, and
duties) that allow even the contemplation of war as HISTORICAL AND MULTICULTURAL PRECEDENTS
a good. The ethics of care, focused on networks of
personal caring relationships, would make war and From ancient times, war has been an accepted part
violence less likely than other ethical schemes. of human interaction. In the ancient world, argu-
ments against war are few and far between, though
Notable organizations involved in pacifism and in the Crito Plato argues that we should never return
antiwar are the Fellowship of Reconciliation, founded evil for evil. One interpretation of Plato would be to
in 1914 as a Christian antiwar movement. It has say that retaliation is morally wrong. As the con-
since become an interfaith organization involving all duct of war is largely retaliatory, often with extreme
faiths and includes those who have no formal faith violence, Plato’s argument might be taken as an
commitment (see the collection of writings from the early argument against war (2011, Crito 48b-c).
Fellowship of Reconciliation, Wink, 2000). However, even if this is a true construction, Plato’s
suggestion is a mere drop of war resistance in a
In some recent political philosophy, a distinc-
tion has been made between “negative peace” and

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

bucketful of the political acceptance of, and justifica- for war. Besides some elements of monasticism and
tions for, war. a few minor sects in the medieval period, Christianity
was at ease with violence, either enacted by the state
It is not that notions of peace were absent from against other states in war, or in pogroms, inquisi-
the ancient world. The Epicureans pursued ataraxia tions, and crusades. Some Christians returned to pac-
as the goal of human life—a state of tranquility ifist roots, but not until the early sixteenth century.
untouched by the chances and changes of life—
hence peace. Yet ataraxia belongs to peace as an Modern philosophers built their understanding of
inner state. The pursuit of ataraxia was engaged in human nature—whether fundamentally aggressive
with the knowledge that the world is one of conflict or pacifistic—from a careful reading of ancient texts,
and war. There was no Epicurean antiwar move- by observation of human behavior, and sometimes
ment in any political sense. because a certain view of human nature matched well
with a religious or ideological viewpoint. However,
Ancient Buddhism and Jainism share the concept recent developments in brain science have challenged
of ahimsa—nonharm—and from the sixth-century the often-held view that human beings are ineluc-
bcE onward had a direct influence on Hindu thought. tably aggressive by nature. Suggestions, backed by
Yet, in Buddhist thought the notion that all of life science, that human beings are an empathic species
is suffering, and that the eightfold path leads one have caused some controversy (see Rifkin, 2009). At
away from suffering have tended toward a social the very least psychologists seem to have established
conservatism and individualism. As suffering will that the human being rather than being either always
be always a part of the human condition, why try aggressive, or else pacifistic, has the potential for pre-
to eradicate it? The best hope is to become person- dation, vengeance, and violence on the one hand,
ally nonattached, and hence avoid suffering. The and for compassion, reason, and peacefulness on the
political attempts to embrace Buddhism as public other (see Pinker, 2011, 483–696).
policy, and hence antiwar, have been few and far
between. A notable exception is As´oka who ruled PACIFISMS
most of India from c. 265 to 238 bcE (see Cort-
wright, 2008, 186). However, more recently a new Pacifism is generally taken to mean something like
tradition, known as engaged Buddhism, has taken “opposition to war.” However, there is no single
the Buddhist notion of metta—loving-kindness, as understanding of pacifism in the literature. Schol-
a starting point for engaged social action to alleviate ars note these main types of pacifism: (a) prin-
suffering and protest war. Vietnamese monk Thich cipled opposition to war in all its forms, but not to
Nhat Hanh (1992) and the Dalai Lama (1999) are all forms of violence; (b) principled opposition to all
notable in this regard. kinds of violence, which includes war; (c) principled
opposition to some kinds of war, such as in nuclear
The Western world had to wait for the early pacifism, but not to “conventional” war. However,
Christian movement for its first brief hiatus looking Duane L. Cady (2010) suggests a moral continuum
toward an antiwar philosophy. For its first 250 years from warism to pacifism, with the different versions
of existence, Christianity was a pacifist movement of pacifism melding into each other with no clear
(Hershberger, 1981, 64–70). Christians were forbid- boundaries.
den from being soldiers in the army of empire until
around 174 cE , under the reign of Marcus Aurelius, The early sixteenth century saw profound
though it must be remembered that early Christian- changes in the political and social landscape of
ity was a movement composed of slaves, women, Europe. Besides the major reforms produced by
and subaltern Jewish males. However, when Con- Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, and oth-
stantine embraced Christianity in the early fourth- ers, a number of small radical sects arose—loosely
century cE , the pacifist religion became the favored termed Anabaptist—in part in the wake of the
religion of Empire and began its own justifications breaking of the hegemony of the Roman church,

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

and in part as a reaction to the slow progress of approach to law), but following Penn’s death Penn-
reform by the magisterial reformers. Once charac- sylvania gradually moved away from its pacifist
terized as violent revolutionaries (in some tellings roots (Brock, 1981, 43–46).
as proto-Marxist), the sixteenth-century radicals
were rebranded as pacifists in the historiography Anabaptist pacifism was of an absolute kind
of Mennonite scholars from the 1940s onward (see and has been termed nonresistance, based on an
Estep, 1963, Hershberger, 1981). Careful, and non- interpretation of the gospel text where Jesus says,
partisan, scholarship places the radicals somewhere “Do not resist evil.” The text was interpreted to
in between. The beginning of religious and political include not only opposition to war or any govern-
freedom in the sixteenth century was fertile ground ment violence—“the sword”—but also any interper-
in which many varieties of religious and political sonal violence. The Anabaptists took the injunction
groups thrived. Some radicals were truly revolution- to “turn the other cheek” quite literally. Even self-
ary, though more often than not of an apocalyptic defense was considered morally wrong. Although
bent, while some embraced the pacifism of a nonvi- few have followed the Anabaptist extreme of non-
olent Christ (Stayer, 1976). Those groups that grad- resistance, most notably Leo Tolstoy embraced
ually embraced pacifism were historically longer such radical pacifism in the late nineteenth century
lived as movements than the violent revolutionar- (1984). Tolstoy differed from the Anabaptists in
ies. Although both types of radical were persecuted holding a more hopeful view of the world. The Ana-
by both Catholic and Protestant state authori- baptists considered the world unredeemable until
ties, the peaceful sects continued through migra- some great apocalyptic event. Hence they did not try
tion, first to Eastern Europe, and then to the new to change society, and simply withdrew into closed
world. These groups we know now as the Amish, communities. Tolstoy, on the other hand, argued
the Mennonites, and the Hutterites, the historic that all in society should embrace nonresistance.
peace churches. They have been largely pacifist
groups who see themselves as islands of holiness The Anabaptist stance has often been considered
in the vast sea of godlessness—what Stayer terms politically irrelevant—though in the twentieth cen-
“separatist nonresistance.” Those within the radical tury Anabaptist were also conscientious objectors
communities see themselves as within “the perfec- (see Brock and Young, 1999). However, scholars
tion of Christ.” The rest of society is outside “the have used Anabaptist-like arguments, that is reli-
perfection of Christ.” The world is characterized gious, to protest war (see, e.g. Hauerwas, 1983,
mostly by violence, which the Anabaptists eschew. 2004, Yoder, 1994, 1996, 1997).
Although pacifists, the Anabaptists had a generally
pessimistic view of society and of political author- A different argument against war and for a
ity, though most viewed the government as God- peaceful life is the brief but influential tract by Henry
given. They did not expect society to become more David Thoreau, On The Duty of Civil Disobedience
peaceful (Brock, 1981, 20). Nonetheless, the peace- written originally in 1849, in part as protest both to
ful sixteenth-century radicals influenced the pacifist slavery and to the Mexican war. Thoreau’s basis is
groups of the seventeenth century—most notably not a religious one, but is based on the inviolabil-
the Quakers—and many pacifists since. Whereas ity of the individual conscience. Government has no
the Anabaptists tended to withdraw from soci- right to demand anything from citizens (for Thoreau
ety, the Quakers under William Penn’s leadership the best form of government is no government at
attempted the “holy experiment” of a pacifist col- all). As government demand citizens to enter the
ony in the new world—Pennsylvania. The pacifist military, it is the citizen’s duty to resist, to disobey
colony was in part successful (in relationships with government nonviolently. Thoreau’s view is signifi-
native Americans and in its generally humanitarian cant for political philosophy in its direct challenge
of the legitimacy of government. Libertarians and
anarchists alike have used Thoreau as a justification
for an antigovernment stance.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

Thoreau (along with other New England paci- Galtung, J. (1996), Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace
fists) influenced Tolstoy. In turn, Thoreau and and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Oslo:
Tolstoy’s work had a direct effect on the young PRIO International Peace Research Institute, and
Mohandas Gandhi, then in South Africa, and London: SAGE.
later on Martin Luther King Jr. In process of time,
the religious argument of the teaching of the New Gan, B. L. (2013), Violence and Nonviolence: An
Testament—to not resist evil, to love enemies, and Introduction. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
to bless persecutors—was conjoined with Thoreau’s
notion of civil disobedience, based on conscience, Gandhi, M. K. (2001), Non-Violent Resistance
to become the social political strategy of nonviolent (Satyagraha). Mineola, NY: Dover.
resistance, sometimes termed simply nonviolence.
Hanh, T. N. (1992), Peace in Every Step: The Path of
NOTES Mindfulness in Every Day Life. New York: Bantam.

1. For an extended essay on the implementation of Hauerwas, S. (1983), The Peaceable Kingdom: A
non-violence, see Nagler (2004). For the history of Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame: University
peace movements, see Cortwright (2008). For an of Notre Dame Press.
eclectic collection of essays on non-violence, see
Zinn (2002). For the history of non-violence, see —(2004), Performing the Faith: Bonhoeffer and the
Kurlansky (2009). For a general introduction to Practice of Nonviolence. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos
peace studies, see Fox (2014). For an historical col- Press.
lection of essays on non-violence, see Holmes and
Gan (2005). Held, V. (2007), The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political
And Global. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WORKS CITED
Hershberger, G. F. (1981), War, Peace, and Nonresis-
Ackerman, P. and Duvall, J. (2000), A Force More tance; A Classic Statement of a Mennonite Peace
Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict. Position in Faith and Practice. Scottdale: Herald
Palgrave: New York. Press.

Brock, P. (1981), The Roots of War Resistance: Holmes, R. L. and Gan, B. L. (2005), Nonviolence in
Pacifism from the Early Church to Tolstoy. Nyack: Theory and Practice. Longrove, IL: Waveland.
The Fellowship of Reconciliation.
King, M. L., Jr (1986), I Have a Dream: Writings and
Brock, P. and Young, N. (1999), Pacifism in the Twentieth Speeches that Changed the World, J. M. Washington
Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (ed.). San Francisco: Harper.

Cady, D. L. (2010), From Warism to Pacifism: A Moral Kurlansky, M. (2009), Non-Violence: The History of a
Continuum. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Dangerous Idea, foreword by His Holiness the Dalai
Press. Lama. New York: The Modern Library.

Churchill, W. and M. Ryan (2007), Pacifism as Pathology: Lama, D. (1999), Ethics for a New Millennium. New
Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North York: Berkley.
America. Oakland: A.K. Press.
Nagler, M. N. (2004), The Search for a Nonviolent
Cortwright, D. (2008), Peace: A History of Movements Future: A Promise of Peace for Ourselves, Our
and Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Families, and Our World. Maui, HI: Inner Ocean
Publishing.
Estep, W. R. (1963), The Anabaptist Story. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans. Noddings, N. (2003), Caring: A Feminine Approach
to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley, CA:
Fox, M. A. (2014), Understanding Peace: A Comprehen- University of California Press.
sive Introduction. New York and London: Routledge.
Pinker, S. (2011), The Better Angels of Our Nature:
Why Violence Has Declined. London: Penguin.

Plato (2011), The Last Days of Socrates. London:
Penguin.

Rifkin, J. (2009), The Empathic Civilization: The Race
to Global Consciousness in a World of Crisis. New
York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

Ruddick, S. (1990), Maternal Thinking: Towards a Tolstoy, L. (1984), The Kingdom of God is Within You:
Politics of Peace. London: Women’s Press. Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion but as a New
Theory of Life, trans. C. Garnett. Lincoln: University
Sharp, G. (1973a), The Politics of Nonviolent Action: of Nebraska Press.
Part One Power and Struggle. Boston, MA: Porter
Sargent. Wink, W. (ed.) (2000), Peace is the Way: Writings on
Nonviolence from the Fellowship of Reconciliation.
—(1973b), The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part Two Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
The Methods of Nonviolent Action. Boston, MA:
Porter Sargent. Yoder, J. H. (1994), The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans.
—(1973c), The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part
Three The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action. Boston, —(1996), When War is Unjust: Being Honest About Just
MA: Porter Sargent. War Thinking. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

—(2005), Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century —(1997), For the Nations: Essays Public and Evan-
Practice and 21st Century Potential. Boston, MA: gelical. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.
Porter Sargent.
Zinn, H. (Introduction) (2002), The Power of Nonvio-
Stayer, J. M. (1976), Anabaptists and the Sword. Law- lence: Writings by Advocates of Peace. Boston, MA:
rence, KS: Coronado Press. Beacon Press.

READING

The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the Dangers of Success)

MICHAEL WALZER

For more chapter resources and activities, go to MindTap.

Study Questions

1. What role did “the national interest” play in the new realism of the 1950s and 1960s, according to Walzer?
2. According to Walzer, in what way has moral theory about just war triumphed?
3. What two responses to this position does Walzer describe, and what are his criticisms of each?

In the 1950s and early 1960s, when I was in grad- practiced being cool and tough-minded; they taught
uate school, realism was the reigning doctrine in the princes, who did not always need to be taught,
the field of “international relations.” The standard how to get results through the calculated application
reference was not to justice but to interest. Moral of force. Results were understood in terms of “the
argument was against the rules of the discipline as national interest,” which was the objectively deter-
it was commonly practiced, although a few writ- mined sum of power and wealth here and now plus
ers defended interest as the new morality. There the probability of future power and wealth. More of
were many political scientists in those years who both was almost always taken to be better; only a
preened themselves as modern Machiavellis and
dreamed of whispering in the ear of the prince; and Michael Walzer, “The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the Dangers
a certain number of them, enough to stimulate the of Success),” Social Research (Winter 2002): 925–933. Reprinted by
ambition of the others, actually got to whisper. They permission of The New School for Social Research.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

few writers argued for the acceptance of prudential words had meanings. Of course, they could be used
limits; moral limits were, as I remember those years, instrumentally; that is always true of political and
never discussed. Just war theory was relegated to moral terms. But if we attended to their meanings,
religion departments, theological seminaries, and a we found ourselves involved in a discussion that
few Catholic universities. And even in those places, had its own structure. Like characters in a novel,
isolated as they were from the political world, the concepts in a theory shape the narrative or the argu-
theory was pressed toward realist positions; perhaps ment in which they figure.
for the sake of self-preservation, its advocates sur-
rendered something of its critical edge. Once the war was over, just war became an aca-
demic subject; now political scientists and philoso-
Vietnam changed all this, although it took a while phers discovered the theory; it was written about
for the change to register at the theoretical level. in the journals and taught in the universities—and
What happened first occurred in the realm of prac- also in the (American) military academies and war
tice. The war became a subject of political debate; it colleges. A small group of Vietnam veterans played
was widely opposed, mostly by people on the left. a major role in making the discipline of morality
These were people heavily influenced by Marxism; central to the military curriculum. They had bad
they also spoke a language of interest; they shared memories. They welcomed just war theory precisely
with the princes and professors of American politics because it was in their eyes a critical theory. It is,
a disdain for moralizing. And yet the experience of in fact, doubly critical—of war’s occasions and its
the war pressed them toward moral argument. Of conduct. I suspect that the veterans were most con-
course, the war in their eyes was radically impru- cerned with the second of these. It is not only that
dent; it could not be won; its costs, even if Ameri- they wanted to avoid anything like the My Lai mas-
cans thought only of themselves, were much too sacre in future wars; they wanted, like professional
high; it was an imperialist adventure unwise even soldiers everywhere, to distinguish their profession
for the imperialists; it set the United States against from mere butchery. And because of their Vietnam
the cause of national liberation, which would alien- experience, they believed that this had to be done
ate it from the Third World (and significant parts of systematically; it required not only a code but also
the First). But these claims failed utterly to express a theory. Once upon a time, I suppose, aristocratic
the feelings of most of the war’s opponents, feel- honor had grounded the military code; in a more
ings that had to do with the systematic exposure democratic and egalitarian age, the code had to be
of Vietnamese civilians to the violence of American defended with arguments.
war-making. Almost against its will, the left fell into
morality. All of us in the antiwar camp suddenly And so we argued. The discussions and debates
began talking the language of just war—though we were wide-ranging even if, once the war was over,
did not know that that was what we were doing… they were mostly academic. It is easy to forget how
large the academic world is in the United States:
What happened then was that people on the there are millions of students and tens of thousands
left, and many others too, looked for a common of professors. So a lot of people were involved,
moral language. And what was most available was future citizens and army officers, and the theory
the language of just war. We were, all of us, a bit was mostly presented, though this presentation was
rusty, unaccustomed to speaking in public about also disputed, as a manual for wartime criticism. Our
morality. The realist ascendancy had robbed us of cases and examples were drawn from Vietnam and
the very words that we needed, which we slowly were framed to invite criticism. Here was a war that
reclaimed: aggression intervention, just cause, self- we should never have fought, and that we fought
defense, noncombatant immunity, proportionality, badly, brutally, as if there were no moral limits. So
prisoners of war, civilians, double effect, terrorism, it became, retrospectively, an occasion for drawing
war crimes. And we came to understand that these a line—and for committing ourselves to the moral

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

casuistry necessary to determine the precise loca- moral regard for civilians at risk is critically impor-
tion of the line. Ever since Pascal’s brilliant denun- tant in winning wider support for the war . . . for any
ciation, casuistry has had a bad name among moral modern war. I will call this the usefulness of moral-
philosophers; it is commonly taken to be excessively ity. Its wide acknowledgement is something radically
permissive, not so much an application as a relax- new in military history.
ation of the moral rules. When we looked back at
the Vietnamese cases, however, we were more likely Hence the old spectacle of George Bush (the
to deny permission than to grant it, insisting again elder), during the Persian Gulf war, talking like a just
and again that what had been done should not have war theorist. Well, not quite: for Bush’s speeches
been done. and press conferences displayed an old American
tendency, which his son has inherited, to confuse
But there was another feature of Vietnam that just wars and crusades, as if a war can be just only
gave the moral critique of the war special force: it when the forces of good are arrayed against the
was a war that we lost, and the brutality with which forces of evil. But Bush also seemed to understand—
we fought the war almost certainly contributed to and this was a constant theme of American military
our defeat. In a war for “hearts and minds,” rather spokesmen—that war is properly a war of armies, a
than for land and resources, justice turns out to be a combat between combatants, from which the civilian
key to victory. So just war theory looked once again population should be shielded. I do not believe that
like the worldly doctrine that it is. And here, I think, the bombing of Iraq in 1991 met just war standards;
is the deepest cause of the theory’s contemporary shielding civilians would certainly have excluded the
triumph: there are now reasons of state for fighting destruction of electricity networks and water purifi-
justly. One might almost say that justice has become cation plants. Urban infrastructure, even if it is nec-
a military necessity. essary to modern war-making, is also necessary to
civilian existence in a modern city, and it is morally
There were probably earlier wars in which the defined by this second feature. Still, American strat-
deliberate killing of civilians, and also the common egy in the Gulf war was the result of a compromise
military carelessness about killing civilians, proved to between what justice would have required and the
be counterproductive. The Boer war is a likely exam- unrestrained bombing of previous wars; taken over-
ple. But for us, Vietnam was the first war in which all, targeting was far more limited and selective than
the practical value of jus in bello became apparent. it had been, for example, in Korea or Vietnam. The
To be sure, the “Vietnam syndrome” is generally reasons for the limits were complicated: in part, they
taken to reflect a different lesson: that we should not reflected a commitment to the Iraqi people (which
fight wars that are unpopular at home and to which turned out not to be very strong), in the hope that
we are unwilling to commit the resources necessary the Iraqis would repudiate the war and overthrow
for victory. But there was in fact another lesson, con- the regime that began it; in part, they reflected the
nected to but not the same as the “syndrome”: that political necessities of the coalition that made the
we should not fight wars about whose justice we are war possible. Those necessities were shaped in turn
doubtful, and that once we are engaged we have to by the media coverage of the war—that is, by the
fight justly so as not to antagonize the civilian popu- immediate access of the media to the battle and of
lation, whose political support is necessary to a mili- people the world over to the media. Bush and his
tary victory. In Vietnam, the relevant civilians were generals believed that these people would not toler-
the Vietnamese themselves; we lost the war when we ate a slaughter of civilians, and they were probably
lost their “hearts and minds.” But this idea about the right (but what it might mean for them not to tol-
need for civilian support has turned out to be both erate something was and is fairly unclear). Hence,
variable and expansive: modern warfare requires the although many of the countries whose support was
support of different civilian populations, extending crucial to the war’s success were not democracies,
beyond the population immediately at risk. Still, a

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

bombing policy was dictated in important ways by This question is sufficiently present in our con-
the demos. sciousness that one can watch people trying to
respond. There are two responses that I want to
This will continue to be true: the media are describe and criticize. The first comes from what
omnipresent, and the whole world is watching. War might be called the postmodern left, which does
has to be different in these circumstances. But does not claim that affirmations of justice are hypocriti-
this mean that it has to be more just or only that it cal, since hypocrisy implies standards, but rather
has to look most just, that it has to be described, that there are no standards, no possible objec-
a little more persuasively than in the past, in the tive use of the categories of just war theory. Poli-
language of justice? The triumph of just war theory ticians and generals who adopt the categories are
is clear enough; it is amazing how readily military deluding themselves—though no more so than the
spokesmen during the Kosovo and Afghanistan theorists who developed the categories in the first
wars used its categories, telling a causal story that place. Maybe new technologies kill fewer people,
justified the war and providing accounts of the bat- but there is no point in arguing about who those
tles that emphasized the restraint with which they people are and whether or not killing them is justi-
were being fought. The arguments (and rational- fied. No agreement about justice, or about guilt or
izations) of the past were very different; they com- innocence, is possible. This view is summed up in
monly came from outside the armed forces—from a line that speaks to our immediate situation: “One
clerics, lawyers, and professors, not from generals— man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” On
and they commonly lacked specificity and detail. this view, there is nothing for theorists and philoso-
But what does the use of these categories, these just phers to do but choose sides, and there is no theory
and moral words, signify? or principle that can guide their choice. But this is
an impossible position, for it holds that we cannot
Perhaps naively, I am inclined to say that jus- recognize, condemn, and actively oppose the murder
tice has become, in all Western countries, one of the of innocent people.
tests that any proposed military strategy or tactic
has to meet—only one of the tests and not the most A second response is to take the moral need to
important one, but this still gives just war theory recognize, condemn and oppose very seriously
a place and standing that it never had before. It and then to raise the theoretical ante—that is, to
is easier now than it ever was to imagine a gen- strengthen the constraints that justice imposes on
eral saying, “No, we can’t do that; it would cause warfare. For theorists who pride themselves on
too many civilian deaths; we have to find another living, so to speak, at the critical edge, this is an
way.” I am not sure that there are many generals obvious and understandable response. For many
who talk like that, but imagine for a moment that years, we have used the theory of just war to criti-
there are; imagine that strategies are evaluated cize American military actions, and now it has
morally as well as militarily; that civilian deaths been taken over by the generals and is being used
are minimized; that new technologies are designed to explain and justify those actions. Obviously, we
to avoid or limit collateral damage, and that these must resist. The easiest way to resist is to make
technologies are actually effective in achieving their noncombatant immunity into a stronger and stron-
intended purpose. Moral theory has been incorpo- ger rule, until it is something like an absolute rule:
rated into war-making as a real constraint on when all killing of civilians is (something close to) murder;
and how wars are fought. This picture is, remember, therefore any war that leads to the killing of civilians
imaginary, but it is also partly true; and it makes is unjust; therefore every war is unjust. So pacifism
for a far more interesting argument than the more reemerges from the very heart of the theory that was
standard claim that the triumph of just war is pure originally meant to replace it. This is the strategy
hypocrisy. The triumph is real: what then is left for adopted, most recently, by many opponents of the
theorists and philosophers to do?

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

Afghanistan war. The protest marches on American not prepared to make the judgments that this exer-
campuses featured banners proclaiming, “Stop the cise and use require. By contrast, just war theory,
Bombing!” and the argument for stopping was very even when it demands a strong critique of particular
simple (and obviously true): bombing endangers acts of war, is the doctrine of people who do expect
and kills civilians. The marchers did not seem to feel to exercise power and use force. We might think of
that anything more had to be said. it as a doctrine of radical responsibility, because it
holds political and military leaders responsible, first
Since I believe that war is still, sometimes, nec- of all, for the well-being of their own people, but
essary, this seems to me a bad argument and, more also for the well-being of innocent men and women
generally, a bad response to the triumph of just war on the other side. Its proponents set themselves
theory. It sustains the critical role of the theory vis- against those who will not think realistically about
à-vis war generally, but it denies the theory the the defense of the country they live in and also
critical role it has always claimed, which is inter- against those who refuse to recognize the human-
nal to the business of war and requires critics to ity of their opponents. They insist that there are
attend closely to what soldiers try to do and what things that it is morally impermissible to do even to
they try not to do. The refusal to make distinctions the enemy. They also insist, however, that fighting
of this kind, to pay attention to strategic and tacti- itself cannot be morally impermissible. A just war is
cal choices, suggests a doctrine of radical suspicion. meant to be, and has to be, a war that it is possible
This is the radicalism of people who do not expect to fight.
to exercise power or use force, ever, and who are

REVIEW EXERCISES

1. Why is the just war theory considered a middle path 4. Can terrorism or torture be justified? On what
between realism and pacifism? grounds?

2. List and explain the basic principles of jus ad bellum 5. How does the principle of double effect apply in just
and jus in bello. war thinking?

3. What are the challenges for thinking about the appli- 6. What counts as a “war crime” or a “crime against
cation of just war principles in the contemporary humanity”?
world?

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Violence and War

DISCUSSION CASES

1. Military Service. Although military service is no government. The government forces are ruthless
longer compulsory in the United States, American and strong—the rebels have to use terrorism: it’s
males age eighteen to twenty-five have to register their only tool.”
with the Selective Service. If you do not register,
you may be denied benefits and employment Whom do you agree with: Marta or Andrea? Is
opportunities. James recently turned eighteen. He terrorism justified as a tool of last resort? Or is terror-
is opposed to war and is considering not signing ism always murder? Explain your answer, making use
up. He is explaining this to his parents. James says, of concepts employed in discussions of realism, just
“Look, I don’t want to support a system that fights war theory, and pacifism.
unjust wars and I won’t fight in one. So I’m not going 3. Military Intervention. The ruler of country Z
to sign up.” James’s father is a military veteran. He has a terrible record of human rights violations.
responds, “We’ve all got a duty to serve our country, He has ordered the slaughter of civilians and has
whether just or unjust. And anyway, you’re wrong to threatened to invade neighboring states. He has
claim we fight unjust wars. Our military fights justly. been working with known arms dealers to develop
Do your duty and register.” James’s brother has a dif- his military capacity. And he has worked to spread
ferent opinion. He says, “Your moral principles don’t his influence by supporting insurgent fighters
apply in war. There are no just or unjust wars. There and terrorist groups in other countries. Three stu-
are only winners and losers. It’s better to be on the dents are debating this case and what the United
winning side. You should register because you want States should do in response. Roxanne is a realist.
the benefits and don’t want to get busted.” She argues that we should attack country Z with
Whom do you agree with here: James, his father, massive force as soon as possible with the goal
or his brother? Should a person register to fight if of decapitating the regime. “That’s what we did
he doesn’t believe in the justice of the wars that are in Japan during World War II. And now Japan is a
being fought? How should moral principles apply in peaceful and stable ally.” Patrick is a pacifist. He dis-
this case? agrees. “You know that we dropped atomic weap-
ons on Japan and firebombed cities. It was immoral
2. Terrorism. Marta has expressed sympathy for reb- to do that. The end doesn’t justify the means. We
els fighting in country X. These rebels have been have to find nonviolent alternatives to deal with Z.”
fighting against an unjust and malicious regime. Justin advocates limited use of military force. He
The regime has killed innocent civilians and has an says, “The just war tradition might allow for preemp-
awful record of human rights violations. The rebel- tive force and may allow for limited war in defense
lion started as a nonviolent protest in the streets. But of human rights. But we have to be careful not to
now the rebels have taken up arms and are actively kill civilians.” Roxanne shakes her head. “Sorry, but
fighting government forces. They have begun to you can’t win a war without killing civilians. And
employ terror tactics, exploding car bombs in the the faster you win, the better for everyone.” Patrick
city center in the capital. Marta supports the rebel sighs. “Have we even tried all of the nonviolent
cause and has even bought a T-shirt with a slogan alternatives?” Justin shrugs. “If we go to war, it can
from the rebel campaign on it. Marta’s roommate, only be a last resort. But, Roxanne, you can’t just kill
Andrea, is appalled. Andrea tells her, “How can you the innocent. You’ve got to win hearts and minds,
wear a T-shirt celebrating terrorists? They kill inno- as well.”
cent people. Even if their cause is just, the rebels
have crossed the line. They’re murderers. All ter- Whom do you agree with in this debate? Why?
rorists are simply murderers.” Marta replies, “That’s What do you suggest we do about brutal dictators
easy for you to say because you’re not suffering and aggressive regimes?
under a repressive government. The rebels are justi-
fied in doing whatever it takes to bring down the For more chapter resources and
activities, go to MindTap.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

20 Global Justice and Globalization

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• • Recapitulate contemporary debates over
valentina angiuli photografie/Moment/Getty Images Describe connections between

• global justice. globalization and the challenges posed
Explain the ideas of ethical consumerism
• by cultural diversity and relativism.
• and fair trade. Evaluate levels of international aid and
Apply concepts such as utilitarianism,
• the role of international institutions.
• justice, and rights to global issues. Defend a thesis about the ethical issue
Explain criticisms and defenses of of global poverty.

economic globalization.

For more chapter resources and activities, go to MindTap.

In recent years, it has become obvious that the globe is increasingly integrated.
Ebola outbreaks in West Africa have caused health scares in North America and
elsewhere. European youth have traveled to the Middle East to fight on behalf of
ISIS—the so-called Islamic State. Terrorists with ties to ISIS and other radical groups
have attacked Europe and North America. Refugees from Middle Eastern conflicts
have fled to Europe. Immigrants from South and Central America continue to travel
across the border into the United States. Climate change and other global environ-
mental problems threaten all of us. A downturn in the market in one part of the world
can have an impact on prices in faraway lands. Oil, electronics, books, films, music,
airplanes, and people flow across borders in ways previously unimaginable.

An old story holds that a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world may
be a contributing cause to a hurricane in another part of the world. One recent book
warns that this so-called butterfly effect becomes dangerous in a world that is not
prepared to respond to the interconnected systems of our global era. The authors of
The Butterfly Defect argue that the ethical justification of globalization rests upon its
promise to improve living conditions and life prospects for people around the world—
but also that this justification is undermined when globalization does not deliver on
this promise.1 This basic justification of globalization appeals to consequentialism:
globalization is thought to be good if it produces good outcomes. A different question

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

focuses on rights and obligations. Do we have obli- it will cause unemployment and create negative out-
gations to care for others across the globe—those comes for the workers there. Some brands and retail
who live in poverty, for example? And how ought chains are working with local labor and business
we to respond to the challenges produced by global leaders in the developing world to forge agreements
integration, including the demand to admit refugees on fire codes and other safety codes for the factories
and the need to respect the rights of indigenous cul- they do business with.
tures? There are a variety of connected issues to
be discussed here. We cannot focus on all of them. Of course, if working conditions in the devel-
Instead we will focus on a few issues, reminding oping world are improved, consumer prices in the
ourselves that similar issues—economic opportunity, developed world may rise. While rising prices of
social justice, respect for rights, and the challenge consumer goods would create hardship for many,
of cultural relativism—have been addressed in prior some consumers may not mind paying more for
chapters. products that are produced and traded in nonex-
ploitative markets. Indeed, some people conscien-
Let’s begin with the question of where our food tiously choose to pay more for clothing and other
and clothing comes from. There is a good chance products that are not produced in sweatshops, pur-
that at least some of the food you ate for breakfast suing a path called variously, ethical consumption,
today was either produced in a foreign country or ethical consumerism, or shopping with conscience.
was processed by immigrants. The same is true for This approach to consumption aims to channel con-
the clothes on your back. Take a look at the labels sumer choices in morally responsible and sustain-
on your clothing and other consumer goods: chances able directions. Would you be willing to pay more
are that your clothes, electronics, furniture, and toys for a product to ensure that the product is not pro-
are produced in places such as China, Sri Lanka, or duced in a sweatshop or by other exploitative labor
Bangladesh. One reason for this is that it is cheaper practices?
to manufacture goods in these places. But cheap
manufacturing is not without social costs and ethical One concept associated with the idea of ethi-
challenges. In 2013, a garment factory in Bangla- cal consumerism is the idea of fair trade practices.
desh collapsed, killing more than 1,120 workers. The Fair trade aims to help disadvantaged people in the
previous year, a fire at another Bangladeshi garment developing world by buying goods that are produced
factory resulted in more than a hundred deaths. In in beneficial and nonexploitative conditions.5 You
2013, a shoe factory caved in on workers in Cam- may have seen fair trade items advertised in stores
bodia, killing two and injuring dozens of others.2 In or on websites. Fair trade coffee, for example, is
2011, two explosions at plants manufacturing iPads typically certified by one of several nonprofit orga-
in China killed four workers, injured seventy-seven nizations (such as Fair Trade USA) to be grown and
others, and raised serious questions about safety harvested by workers who are able to earn a living
conditions throughout Apple’s supply chain.3 These wage under safe working conditions. (See the dis-
industrial disasters prompted calls for more equitable cussion of living wage in Chapter 14.) But some
and just treatment of workers across the globe. The critics worry that the fair trade label simply makes
Walt Disney company announced that it was going consumers feel good, while being used as a market-
to stop producing Disney brand products in develop- ing ploy by big corporations.6 Similar worries have
ing countries that have lax labor standards and poor been voiced about contributions to aid organizations.
regulation, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Belarus, How can we be sure that those we intend to help
Ecuador, and Venezuela.4 Some viewed this as a actually receive the help we intend to give? There is
good move on the part of Disney, motivated by a an important practical question here, one that does
sense of moral responsibility. But critics worry that not, however, change the moral question of whether
if big corporations pull out of the developing world, we should help others in need—especially very poor
people in other parts of the globe.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

palash khan/Alamy Stock Photo from all corners of the world, which occurs as capi-
tal, goods, services, labor, technology, ideas, and
Globalization creates moral questions about global expertise move across international borders. Global-
justice, including decent working conditions for people ization is a fact; the world is increasingly integrated.
across the globe. Global justice is focused on the moral question of
the underlying fairness and justice of the current
Not everyone agrees we should go out of our globalized situation. Proponents of global justice are
way to help others. And many will argue that it is focused broadly on the question of what sort of con-
perfectly fine to maximize one’s own self-interest cern we ought to have for all human beings, regard-
by seeking out bargains no matter how they are less of national status or citizenship. In this sense,
produced, or by refusing to donate to charities. For global justice is cosmopolitan—directed toward the
many, it just does not seem rational to pay more universal concerns of all citizens of the world. We
for fair trade coffee or sneakers or T-shirts, when discussed cosmopolitan concerns in Chapter 2, where
cheaper products can be found. Why should we be we dealt with the problem of relativism and religious
concerned with the deaths of garment workers in difference. Those issues remain in the background of
distant countries? Why should we care whether for- the consideration of global justice. Is there a moral
eign peasants earn a living wage? Those questions framework that can encompass the entire globe,
are part of a larger question about the sorts of obli- despite global diversity? Or is the world fragmented
gations we have to those who suffer and die in dis- into rival nations, economies, and civilizations that
tant lands. These sorts of ethical questions arise in each ought to fend for themselves? What sorts of
the context of thinking about globalization; they are obligations do individuals have toward each other in
the concerns of global justice. the context of a world that is controlled by national
governments, international treaties, nongovernmen-
Globalization is the process through which the tal organizations, and multinational corporations?
world’s business, cultural, and political systems are
becoming more integrated. Globalization can be One of the issues of concern from the standpoint
defined as a historical process that includes the grow- of global justice is poverty and gross inequalities
ing interconnection of local and national economies across the globe. This topic is connected to our dis-
cussion of economic justice and inequality in
Chapter 14. But the issue of global economic
inequality is complicated by the fact that many cur-
rent inequities can be traced to past colonial and
imperial injustices. Some nations have built up their
present economic power by exploiting other nations.
A further problem is the presence of national and
cultural differences, as well as local governments of
various types, which operate as intermediaries
between individual citizens and the demands of
global justice. We have to figure out which theory of
economics and politics makes sense in thinking
about global justice. We also have to figure out how
that moral theory should be applied in a world of
vast cultural differences.

For more chapter resources and
activities, go to MindTap.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

MORAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL since trading on the market is the key to long-term
POVERTY economic well-being.

In 2013, the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Another criticism of the idea of donating to the
Kim, announced the goal of eliminating extreme poor focuses on the nature of obligation and duty.
poverty across the globe by the year 2030. He Many feel that although it would be nice to help poor
linked the moral goal of eliminating global pov- people, charity is supererogatory—something that
erty to the goal of sustainable development for all goes above and beyond what is required. And fur-
peoples: “Assuring that growth is inclusive is both thermore, some might argue, charity should begin
a moral imperative and a crucial condition for sus- at home, as the saying goes. In this view, we have
tained economic development.”7 Kim suggested that obligations to care for our close relations, our friends,
sustainable development for everyone requires us to and our co-citizens, and those obligations are more
address global poverty and inequality—and that it is important than any charitable obligation we might
beneficial for those in affluent nations when those in have to suffering foreigners. These critics may also
the developing world are also doing better. But Kim argue that global poverty is simply not our fault.
also used strong moral language, claiming that help- Guilt and responsibility are appropriate if you have
ing the global poor is a moral imperative. If there is a done something wrong. But there is nothing wrong
moral duty to help the poor, then it would be wrong with buying a latte or a pair of sneakers, and my
not to help them. And if it is wrong not to help the consumer choices do not actively harm the poor. In
poor, then we should feel guilty if we do not help fact, some may argue, by buying sneakers produced
them. With billions of people living on a few dollars in sweatshops in Cambodia, we are helping the Cam-
per day, should we feel guilty if we are enjoying a bodians who produce them by purchasing their prod-
$5 café latte or ice cream treat? For the price of one ucts. Without the purchases of consumers in affluent
of those luxuries, we could be helping children who countries, those workers might have no jobs at all.
might die from poverty. If you don’t feel guilty when
you enjoy your tasty treat, is there something mor- One response to that argument has been given
ally wrong with you? by the philosopher Thomas Pogge, an important
proponent of the idea of global justice. Pogge argues
A critic may reply that the fact that we do not that the international system violates the rights of
feel guilty about our indulgences is a sign that there the world’s poor. He claims that the international
is no moral obligation to care about the suffering system is rigged against the poor—as large corpora-
of distant people. Of course, it might be that our tions and conditions created by historical injustices
feelings are poor guides for morality and we really contribute to the continuing plight of the disadvan-
should feel guilty. A further argument is needed. The taged. Pogge acknowledges that there is a difference
critic might provide one by claiming that our indi- between failing to save people and actively killing
vidual choices can have little effect on something as them. But he claims that we are not merely failing
complex as the global economy. There is no guar- to save the poor; he also claims that we are actively
antee that by donating to charity instead of enjoy- perpetuating their predicament because historical
ing a luxury good, we will actually help anyone. and international structures create a “massive head-
And besides, the critic may continue, the old saying wind” that the poor cannot overcome. He concludes
holds that if you give a man a fish, you only feed that affluent nations and citizens of affluent nations
him for a day but when you give a man a fishing owe compensation to the poor.8 He has proposed, for
pole, you feed him for a lifetime. Following that line example, a “global resource dividend” as one aspect
of reasoning, the critic may argue that giving to the of a global scheme for compensating the poor. This is
poor only makes them dependent on handouts. It a sort of tax on resources that would be used to help
is better, from this perspective, to buy commodities the poor. One example he proposes is a $3 per bar-
produced by the poor than to give to them directly, rel charge on oil. This would raise the price of oil by

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

about 7 cents per gallon; but the revenue generated have resonated with a number of people. The Wash-
would create sufficient funding to eradicate world ington Post reported on a number of people who
hunger within a few years.9 Practical and political have pursued big salaries on Wall Street and in other
details remain to be worked out for such a proposal. ventures with the goal of earning lots of money
For example, how do we institute and collect such precisely so they can give much of it away to help
resource dividends? But the practical concerns do the poor. The phenomenon has been described as
not change the nature of Pogge’s moral claim—that “earning to give.” Several of the individuals who are
we owe compensation to the poor and that we ought “earning to give” explain that they were motivated
to find ways to help alleviate world hunger. by Singer’s concerns.11

A similar argument has been made by the utilitar- Of the opposite point of view is Garrett Hardin
ian philosopher Peter Singer—an author whom we’ve (whose work is excerpted below), who believes that
discussed in previous chapters (with regard to animal we have no obligation to give to the poor because
welfare, for example, in Chapter 17). Singer main- to do so will do no good.12 We discussed Hardin (in
tains that giving to victims of famines is not charity Chapter 16) with regard to the problem of the trag-
but, rather, a duty. Singer stipulates that, “if it is in edy of the commons—the problem that arises when
our power to prevent something very bad from hap- everyone pursues their own self-interest without
pening, without thereby sacrificing anything mor- regard for common environmental goods. Hardin’s
ally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.” Singer ideas about global justice are linked to a related worry
uses an analogy of saving a child from drowning in about growing populations and lack of adequate
a mud puddle to make his point: “if I am walking resources to feed everyone. Hardin maintains that the
past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, nations of the world are struggling for existence as if
I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will each nation is an individual lifeboat on a stormy sea.
mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignifi- Each of these lifeboats has a limited carrying capac-
cant, while the death of the child would presumably ity and is subject to environmental threats, which
be a very bad thing.”10 Singer maintains that prox- means that the members of each lifeboat have to
imity does not matter—if the dying child is far away look out for themselves by building up reserves and
or nearby, we still have the same obligation. And he avoiding overuse of their own resources. Hardin fur-
denies that our individual responsibility can be dif- ther suggests that famine relief only postpones the
fused by the fact that there are lots of others who inevitable—death and suffering. According to Hardin,
could also help; each should help, whether there are this is because overpopulation produced by famine
others who could help or not. Singer believes that we relief will lead to more famine and even worse death
have an obligation to help those less well off than in the future. From Hardin’s perspective, there is a
ourselves to the extent that helping them leaves us natural process of boom and bust, binge and purge
less well off than they are. He explains that we ought that follows along lines outlined by Thomas Mal-
to give up to the point of “marginal utility,” that is thus, the eighteenth-century author and economist.
up to the point at which giving causes us to suffer Malthus predicted that populations grow until they
significantly so that by giving we end up in as bad a outstrip their resources, after which they die back.
state as those we are trying to help. Hardin maintains—as Malthus did—that it is wrong
to help starving people because such help only causes
Singer’s idea is demanding. It implies that I must them to live longer and reproduce, which will produce
always justify spending money on myself or my more mouths to feed and more suffering and a worse
family or friends. Whether I am justified in doing so, population crash in the future.
in this view, depends on whether anything I do for
myself or others is of comparable moral importance Whether Hardin’s Malthusian predictions are cor-
to saving the lives of others who are starving and rect is an empirical matter. These predictions would
lacking in basic necessities. But Singer’s arguments need to be verified or supported by observation and

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

historical evidence. And many factors must be con- Self-Interest
sidered. For example, will all forms of famine relief,
especially when combined with other aid, necessarily On the one hand, our own interests may dictate that
do more harm than good as Hardin predicts? Is it pos- we should do something to lessen the gap between
sible to provide assistance to the impoverished while rich and poor nations and alleviate the conditions
also encouraging birth control, responsible farm- of the less fortunate. In terms of trade alone, these
ing practices, liberation for women, and sustainable nations can contribute much to our economic benefit
industrial development—all of which would prevent by the goods they could purchase from us. Moreover,
overpopulation and subsequent die-back? the worldwide problems caused by the migration of
desperate people from poorer to wealthier countries
Answering such questions is difficult because could be moderated. Furthermore, the problem of
it requires knowledge of the effects of aid in many terrorism might be dramatically reduced if we could
different environmental, cultural, and political cir- reduce poverty and suffering abroad. Some critics
cumstances. It is worthwhile reflecting, however, on argue that it is not poverty that breeds terrorism but
the consequentialist nature of these arguments. The “feelings of indignity and frustration.”14 Nonethe-
primary focus of most discussions of global poverty less, poverty is destabilizing and inequality breeds
is a sort of global utilitarianism, which is concerned resentment. In the long run, other people’s poverty
with the suffering of mass numbers of the global can have negative consequences for our own self-
poor. A different sort of concern can be grounded in interested concerns.
the natural law tradition associated with the Catholic
Church. Thomas Aquinas suggests, for example, that In terms of self-interest, we may also be con-
when people are in severe need, they have a natural cerned about the impact of global poverty on the
right to be fed and that it is immoral for those with a environment and with regard to other social issues
superabundance of food to withhold assistance to the that affect us. Global poverty causes stress on the
needy: “whatever certain people have in superabun- environment. Poor people in the Amazon region, for
dance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of suc- example, cut down trees to make farms and charcoal
coring the poor.” Aquinas quotes St. Ambrose, who to sell. Impoverished people burning wood for cook-
says of rich people who hoard their wealth: “It is the ing and warmth produce pollution. Because we are
hungry man’s bread that you withhold.”13 Claims all affected by damage to the environment, it is in
about the need to alleviate poverty can also be our best interest to find ways to eliminate the pov-
derived from other non-consequentialist arguments erty that leads to some of this damage. Furthermore,
that rely on notions of justice and fairness. Objec- new infectious diseases often break out in impover-
tions to these sorts of arguments may also appeal to ished areas, which can then spread across the globe.
non-consequentialist concerns such as concern for And mass migrations of the poor and dispossessed
property rights. My right to my own property, for can put pressure on political and social institutions,
example, might trump another person’s entitlement as affluent nations are forced to deal with the needs
to be helped. Other non-consequentialist consider- of so-called economic refugees.
ations may involve claims about the importance of
proximity and relatedness. For example, I may have Justice
stronger obligations to my own kin or to members of
my own country than I do to distant strangers. Apart from self-interest, there may be requirements
of justice that tell us we ought to care for the poor.
Before we move on to examine the practical Justice is not charity. It may well be that charity
implications of this debate, let’s consider in greater or altruistic concern for the plight of others ought
detail a few other basic ethical ideas that could be to play a role in how we relate to distant peoples.
appealed to in thinking about global poverty and Charity is certainly an ethically important notion,
global justice. but a more difficult consideration is whether we
have any obligation or duty to help those in need in

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

faraway places. Charity, in some sense, is optional. poor), then it does not seem fair that the lucky have
But if we are obligated to help others, then this is so much and the unlucky so little. Is it not luck that
not an optional matter. Are we under any obligation one nation has oil and another does not? But the
to help those faraway persons in need, and why or primary concern for the defenders of end-state jus-
why not? Recall from Chapter 14 that considerations tice is the actual distribution of things; if it is too
of justice play a role in evaluating the distribution unequal, then it is wrong.
of goods. In that chapter, we discussed this in rela-
tion to such a distribution within a society. However, Justice is also a matter of fairness. People in
it can also be used to evaluate the distribution of affluent nations consume a much larger proportion
goods in the human community as a whole. We can of goods and resources than people in less affluent
then ask whether a particular distribution of goods nations. According to one estimate, people in afflu-
worldwide is just. As noted in Chapter 14, there are ent nations such as the United States, Japan, and
differences of opinion as to how we ought to deter- countries in Western Europe consume on average
mine this. thirty-two times more resources per person than do
people in underdeveloped countries.15 The ecologi-
One idea of justice is the process view, according cal footprint of affluent nations is also larger than
to which any distribution can be said to be just if that of underdeveloped countries. People in affluent
the process by which it comes to be is just. In other countries consume more, use more resources, and
words, if there was no theft or fraud or other immoral produce more pollution. We could ask whether this
activity that led to the way things have turned out, is a fair distribution. How would we determine an
then the resulting arrangement is just. In applying equal or fair share of resource use or pollution pro-
this at the global level, we can ask whether the rich duction, while also taking into account global diver-
nations are rich at least partly because of wrongful sity? Do people in very hot or very cold climates
past actions, such as colonialism, the slave trade, deserve more or less energy usage? Are people in
or other forms of exploitation. If affluent nations cities entitled to more or less pollution than people
caused poverty in poor nations through colonial who live in rural or in wilderness areas? To address
exploitation, then the affluent countries might owe this issue more fully would require complex analysis
some sort of reparation to the poor. But a critic may of the idea of fair shares of world resources.
respond by saying that even if past exploitation was
wrong, at some point history is over and we have to As a preliminary, let’s note that in Chapter 14
move forward. we discussed the idea of justice as fairness, which
is associated with the ideas of John Rawls. Rawls’s
Another idea of justice is called end-state justice. account is primarily focused on distributive justice
According to this view, the end state, or how things within the domestic arena. Late in his career, Rawls
have turned out, is also relevant. Egalitarians argue extended his considerations toward global issues
that the gap between rich and poor is something in a book called The Law of Peoples.16 In that text,
wrong in itself because we are all members of the Rawls outlined a way of approaching what we might
same human family and share the same planet. On call international distributive justice—the question
the one hand, some argue that it is morally permis- of how we ought to distribute goods among nations.
sible for some people to have more than others if the One important point to note here is that when we
difference is a function of something like the greater focus on the issue as one of “international” concern
effort or contributions of the affluent. From this per- we assume a framework based upon agreements
spective, those who work harder and who are thrifty among nations. In other words, from this point of
are entitled to what they have. They sacrificed and view the concerns of global justice are mediated by
saved while others did not. On the other hand, if the nations of the world. While someone like Peter
the wealth of some and the poverty of others result Singer may direct our attention to the question of
instead from luck and fortune (or exploitation of the what affluent individuals ought to do about starving

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

others, a liberal internationalist approach is focused Rights
more on the question of what nations (or as Rawls
calls them, “peoples”) owe one another. Apply- Most Western governments and international orga-
ing this framework, Rawls concludes, among other nizations agree that political freedoms, civil rights,
things: “peoples have a duty to assist other peoples and labor standards are not separable from economic
living under unfavorable conditions that prevent progress. They stress that prohibitions on child labor,
their having a just or decent political and social enforcement of women’s rights, prevention of defor-
regime.”17 We should note that Rawls’s account estation and pollution, and the enhancement of intel-
seems to agree with the mainstream approach of lectual property rights, freedom of the press, and
institutions such as the World Bank, which want to other civil liberties must be central to economic devel-
approach the alleviation of global poverty within the opment. As the global economy is becoming more
framework on existing international institutions and integrated, many would argue that this integration
nation-states. must be based upon ideas about human rights, which
are supposedly universally valid and applicable.

Outline of Moral Approaches to Globalization

Global justice Moderate Self-Interest
Internationalism

Thesis The demands of global jus- Respect international agree- National interest and self-
tice are primary and ments and pursue interna- interest are primary
universal tional justice as fairness

Corollaries and We have obligations to the Globalization ought to pro- Primary obligation is to
Implications
global poor including refu- duce benefits for all parties; ourselves and our own

gees; we ought to avoid but national self-determina- posterity; charity toward

exploitative international tion remains important; goal global poor creates depen-

economic arrangements; we of international agreements dence and population

ought to engage in fair trade to help the poor combined pressures which exacer-

and pursue ethical consump- with aspects of capitalist glo- bate problems; developed

tion; former colonial powers balization including free nations do not owe com-

may owe compensation to markets and political pensation or reparation to

the global poor liberalization the poor

Connections with Utilitarian concern for Utilitarian concern to bal- Egoism; at the national
Moral Theory level, utilitarianism
global application of the ance national productivity focused domestically;
libertarian economic
idea of greatest happiness for and profit with global con- theory views global
economy as a struggle
the greatest number; prior cern; right of nations to their limited only by negative
rights
violations of the rights of the own product balanced with

global poor require repara- the need to help the poor

tion and compensation; posi- within modern liberal eco-

tive right to subsistence nomic and political theory

Relevant Singer, Pogge World Bank; Rawls Malthus, Hardin
Authors/
Institutions

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

The issue of rights is not that simple. There are World Bank claims that in 2015, global poverty rate
positive rights—to welfare—and negative rights—to fell below 10 percent, with “only” about 700 million
liberty and property (as discussed in Chapter 14). people now living in extreme poverty. This is a land-
Some proponents of globalization will argue that mark achievement and marks progress toward the
every person has a positive right to subsistence—a World Bank’s goal of eliminating extreme poverty
basic right to clean water, basic food, and freedom by 2013. Given long decades of double-digit poverty
from want. It is not enough, from this perspective, rates, a poverty rate in the single digits is something
to avoid harming others or exploiting them. Rather, to be celebrated.19 Of course, such data need inter-
such a positive right to subsistence implies a positive pretation. One significant consideration is the fact
obligation on the part of those who have surplus that the World Bank has redefined what it counts as
wealth. Others will maintain that the negative rights extreme poverty. Prior to 2008, it defined extreme
to liberty and property are primary. From this per- poverty as an income of less than $1 per day; after
spective, we only have an obligation not to exploit 2008, it redefined extreme poverty as income of less
others, steal their property, or enslave them. than $1.25 per day. As of 2015, the World Bank
defines it as an income of less than $1.90 per day;
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS under the older definition, back in 2012, there were
over 900 million people living in extreme poverty
Responses to global poverty should be guided by (12.8% of the global population).20 It could be that
moral concepts, such as the ones we’ve discussed changing the numbers allows us to feel that we are
previously. But, as we’ve seen with regard to many of making progress. But at any rate, whether you live
the applied topics in this book, moral questions also on one dollar per day or two, let’s admit that you are
depend on circumstantial and factual matters. This is poor; and the fact remains that hundreds of millions
especially true with regard to consequentialist reason- of people are extremely poor.
ing, where the goal is to produce good outcomes in
the world. If we are going to produce good outcomes, Extreme poverty is also “poverty that kills.”
we have to understand the circumstances and empiri- People in extreme poverty are “chronically hungry,
cal issues. Here are some issues to consider. unable to get health care, lack safe drinking water
and sanitation, cannot afford education for their chil-
Global Inequality dren, and perhaps lack rudimentary shelter . . . and
clothing.”21 Children of the global poor are particu-
At the heart of many arguments about the need to larly vulnerable, dying from various causes includ-
help the poor is the claim that gross inequalities ing easily preventable diseases and illnesses.22 For
across the globe are unjustified. A related claim is example, hundreds of millions of people come down
that there is an obvious moral demand for the afflu- with malaria every year and hundreds of thousands
ent to respond to the abject suffering of those who die. In 2015, there were 214 million malaria cases
are on the bottom. Singer, Pogge, and others argue and 438,000 malaria deaths.23 People living in the
that our relative wealth means that we can allevi- poorest countries and children in those countries are
ate lots of suffering for a minor cost—an empirical especially vulnerable to malaria, which can be eas-
claim that should prompt us to examine the severity ily prevented by the use of mosquito nets and other
of global inequality. prophylactic measures. There has been an improve-
ment over past mortality rates as a result of an active
Consider, for example, that workers in the Ban- campaign to prevent and treat malaria. Nonetheless,
gladeshi garment factories that have burned and the disease still preys upon the poor.
collapsed typically earn between $37 and $50 per
month—that amounts to just over a dollar per day.18 Poverty in the developing world undermines
This means that if you donate a dollar and change opportunities. It is connected to a variety of issues
per day, you could double someone’s income. We including the oppression of women, illiteracy,
have made progress in reducing global poverty. The

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

governmental corruption, and so on. There are vast a goal for rich countries to donate 0.7 percent of their
inequalities across the globe. One obvious measure gross national product (GNP) to alleviate poverty.
of inequality is found in mortality rates and life (GNP is calculated in ways that are similar to GDP,
expectancy. Life expectancy in rich countries is sub- or gross domestic product.) This international effort
stantially higher than in poor countries. In Japan, has been established in a variety of treaties in recent
Switzerland, Germany, and Norway, life expectancy decades including the UN Millennium Development
is above 80 years. In the United States, life expec- Project and the Monterrey (Mexico) Conference on
tancy is 79 years. But in Kenya, life expectancy is Financing for Development and a subsequent agree-
63 years; it is 70 years in Bangladesh; and 64 years ment in Johannesburg, South Africa.27 One of the
on Cambodia. The country of Chad has the lowest difficulties for discussing foreign aid is that many
life expectancy, 49 years.24 Those who argue that Americans think that the United States gives much
we ought to take action to alleviate global poverty more in aid. A poll in 2014 reported that the aver-
will point out the injustice of these sorts of inequali- age American thinks that around 25 percent of the
ties. Is it fair that Americans and Europeans live long federal budget goes to foreign aid.28 When asked
and live well while others suffer and die young? what they considered the appropriate amount of for-
eign aid to be, the typical response was about 10
Another measure of inequality is in economic percent of the budget—which is actually ten times
terms. According to the World Bank, the United the amount of aid actually allocated in the federal
States is the world’s richest country in terms of budget.29
gross domestic product (GDP), with China, Japan,
Germany, and France following. The GDP in the Only 1 percent of the U.S. budget goes to for-
United States in 2014 was over $17.4 trillion, com- eign aid. Out of $4 trillion budget that is a signifi-
pared, for example to Kenya, with a GDP of $60 cant amount.30 But even at 1 percent of the federal
billion or with some smaller nations such as the budget, the United States falls short of the 0.7 per-
Marshall Islands, with a GDP of $187 million.25 A cent of GNP target set by the United Nations. The
more precise measure of inequality is to compare per United States continues to be the world’s largest
capita GDP, which divides the gross domestic prod- donor in raw terms, giving a total of over $32 bil-
uct of a nation by its population. Using that mea- lion in 2014; at 0.19% of GNP, this is still a long
sure, Malawi had the lowest per capita GDP in 2014, way from the UN target.31 This means that U.S. aid
at $255. By comparison, Kenya’s per capita GDP in donations amount to about 19 cents for every $100
2014 was $1,358 and Chad’s was $1,024. The per of income, while the United Nations’ target would
capita GDP for Bangladesh was $1,086, while in the have the United States donating 70 cents for every
United States, per capita GDP was $54,629. The per $100. If the United States hit the 0.7 percent target,
capita GDP in the United States was lower than that its aid budget would increase from its current $32
of a number of other countries, including Sweden, billion to around $100 billion. That extra $70 billion
Denmark, Switzerland, and Norway.26 could go a long way toward solving the problem of
global poverty.
Levels of International Aid
Some rich nations have made an effort to reach
The rich nations of the world do allocate some of the target of donating 0.7 percent, with European
their budgets to the alleviation of global poverty and nations in the lead. The Organization for Economic
inequality. Most affluent nations acknowledge that Cooperation and Development reports that in 2014,
there is some need to help the poor, either because the world’s largest donors in raw terms were the
they see a moral imperative to help or believe that United States, the UK, Germany, France, and Japan.
helping is in everyone’s interest, since poverty Some nations exceed the UN.’s 0.7 percent target:
and inequality are destabilizing forces in the global Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, and Sweden—with
economy. International agreements have established the United Kingdom joining the list in 2014 (and the

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

Netherlands falling of the list for the first time in a institutions, corporate structures, military treaties,
number of years)32. Indeed, the UK passed a law in and trade relations left behind continue to favor the
2015 making a commitment to the 0.7 percent tar- First World to the detriment of the Third World.
get, which made it the first G7 country to make such
a commitment (the G7 countries—the “group of One response to this sort of argument is to claim
seven” countries—are the leading industrial nations that colonialism was not the evil it is made out to
of the world: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, be. Dinesh D’Souza—an Indian-born American
the UK, and the United States).33 intellectual—has argued, for example, that “colo-
nialism has gotten a bad name in recent decades.”36
Causes of Global Poverty D’Souza maintains that in some ways colonialism
may have been good for the colonized countries.
The causes of extreme poverty and lack of develop- In a book in which he accuses President Obama of
ment in a nation are many and complicated. Among being a proponent of Fanon-style anticolonialism,
them are said to be geographic isolation, epidemic D’Souza concludes,
disease, drought and other natural disasters, lack of
clean water, poor soil, poor physical infrastructure, When the British came to India and Kenya, they came
lack of education and a decent health care system, for selfish reasons: they came to rule and to benefit
civil war and corruption, and the colonial and trade from that rule. Nevertheless, in order to rule effectively
practices of Western nations. the British introduced Western ideas and Western
institutions to the subject peoples. Eventually those
Colonialism In one view, it is colonialism that has people used British ideas of self-determination and
been the cause of poverty in many of the world’s freedom to combat British rule. As a native-born
poorest countries. Among those who hold this to be Indian, I have to say that even our freedom was a
the case is Frantz Fanon, a North African intellec- consequence of what we learned from our Western
tual who was born in the Caribbean. Fanon’s work captors.37
The Wretched of the Earth is a seminal text in post-
colonial studies.34 Fanon’s idea is that the West- D’Souza has also pointed out that Western colo-
ern nations stole the riches of their colonies, thus nialism is only part of a much larger history that
enhancing their own wealth while depressing the includes a long litany of colonial interventions,
wealth of the colonies. According to Fanon, “Euro- including colonizing by the Egyptians, the Persians,
pean opulence is literally scandalous, for it has been and so on. D’Souza concludes that to blame Euro-
founded on slavery, it has been nourished with the pean colonialists for stealing and exploitation in the
blood of slaves and it comes directly from the soil Third World is to “relieve the Third World of blame
and from the subsoil of that underdeveloped world. for its wretchedness.”38 From D’Souza’s perspective,
The well-being and the progress of Europe have the corruption, injustice, and poverty found in the
been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies Third World are not the result of European exploita-
of Negroes, Arabs, Indians, and the yellow races.”35 tion. Rather, it is the result of insufficient Western-
From this standpoint, the poverty of much of the ization. D’Souza argues that the solution is further
world is due to a long history of European interven- expansion of Western European ideas about human
tion, colonial domination, slavery, and theft. More- rights, technology, and free markets.
over, the argument continues, deprivation in what
Fanon calls the “third” or underdeveloped world Farm Subsidies and Other Trade Barriers Subsidies
can be attributed to continued exploitation of the for the farms of Western countries have also been
poor by the rich. Even though outright colonialism blamed by some critics for the poverty in develop-
ended in the twentieth century, as former colonies ing countries. In the United States, these subsidies
gained their independence, Fanon argues that the originally were intended to help farmers hurt by
the Great Depression. But they have been main-
tained and expanded. Between 1995 and 2012,

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

farmers in the United States received $292.5 billion Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which links Canada,
in subsidies—both by direct payments and through Mexico, and the United States in a Free Trade Zone.
crop insurance.39 In other countries, subsidies are As a result of this agreement, Mexico was flooded
given to small specialty farms, for example, those with cheap corn and corn products from the United
in the grape-growing or cheese-producing regions States, such as animal feed. (Corn is one of the most
of France. Such distortions of the international agri- heavily subsidized crops in the United States.) This
culture market can make it extremely difficult for had a devastating impact on small Mexican farmers.
poor farmers in Mexico or in sub-Saharan Africa to According to one estimate, nearly two million farm
compete. Moreover, in some cases (especially in the jobs were lost in Mexico as a result. Many of these
United States) such subsidies go to large industrial- small farmers abandoned their fields and headed
ized farms that then produce huge crop surpluses north to work as illegal laborers in the United States.
for cheap export—undercutting the sale of local The general cross-border economy is doing well. But
agricultural products in the developing world. Sub- the chief beneficiaries of NAFTA have been big com-
stantial evidence suggests that reducing subsidies panies, while the small operations have been hurt.41
and removing trade barriers would help end poverty. The moral ideal of fair competition is certainly rele-
Economist Gary S. Fields points out, “Agricultural vant in such discussions. Just how to make competi-
subsidies by the United States, Europe, and Japan tion fair is, however, a matter for debate.
total $350 billion a year—seven times the foreign
aid provided by all developed countries.” He con- Institutional Issues Debate also continues about
cludes that ending farm subsidies could lift 140 the role played by international financial institu-
million people out of poverty.40 Other people argue, tions. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
however, that there is no guarantee that eliminating World Bank were both established in 1944 to pre-
these subsidies would help poor farmers. Moreover, serve international financial stability. A newer
perhaps all nations should have a right to protect international organization is the World Trade Orga-
and support their own farmers, whatever the conse- nization (WTO), and there are other organizations
quences abroad. such as the G7 mentioned above, which represents
the interests of eight of the world’s largest econo-
One of the issues with regard to subsidies is fair- mies, accounting for more than half of global GDP.
ness. The International Monetary Fund and the World (The G7 expanded to include Russia at one point,
Bank often ask developing countries that receive becoming the G8—but Russia was suspended from
loans and other aid to eliminate subsidies for their the organization in 2014).42 The G20 includes
exports. However, developed countries such as the twenty finance ministers and central bank gover-
United States continue to subsidize their own agricul- nors and represents the financial interest of nations
tural products. As a result, foreign farmers frequently that account for about 80 percent of world trade.
cannot compete on the global market with products In recent years, there have been massive protests
grown on U.S. farms. At the same time, U.S. produc- at meetings of these organizations and others like
ers lobby against trade barriers enacted by foreign them. Pro-labor and environmental groups have
countries, which prevent Americans from selling protested against economic globalization at meet-
U.S. products in foreign markets. It makes sense for ings of the WTO, the G8, the G20, the IMF, and the
nations to want to protect their own farmers and pro- World Bank. These antiglobalization protests culmi-
ducers. And it also makes sense that farmers and pro- nated in police crackdowns, mass arrests, vandal-
ducers would want to have access to markets abroad. ism, and street fighting in Seattle, Washington, in
The reality of globalized business is complicated and 1999; in Genoa, Italy, in 2001; and in Geneva in
there is a constant struggle to maximize profit and 2009. In Toronto, in 2010, more than 1,100 people
minimize risk. All of this results in unequal outcomes were arrested in anti-G20 protests.43
across the globe. Consider the North American Free

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

The antiglobalization protesters have a variety IMF and World Bank policies, for example, have
of specific concerns. But among them is a feeling harmed rather than helped the development of Third
that economic decisions are being made by bureau- World countries. High interest rates harmed fledg-
crats and bankers without concern for the interests ling companies, trade liberalization policies made
of working people. Canadian journalist and author poorer countries unable to compete, and liberaliza-
Naomi Klein has explained the antiglobalization tion of capital markets enabled larger foreign banks
movement as developing out of a perceived “crisis to drive local banks out of business. Privatization
of democracy.”44 Critics of the economic institutions of government-owned enterprises without adequate
of globalization insist that they are not opposed to local regulation also contributed to the increasingly
international integration and cooperation. Rather, desperate situation of some developing countries.
they say that they are opposed to that type of glo- According to Stiglitz, these international financial
balization that is more concerned about the rights institutions have ignored some of the consequences
of investors than the rights of workers. Noam of their policies because of their belief in unfettered
Chomsky, a well-known critic of globalization and capitalism. He writes:
of American foreign policy, argues, “the term ‘glo-
balization’ has been appropriated by the powerful Stabilization is on the agenda; job creation is off.
to refer to a specific form of international economic Taxation, and its adverse effects, are on the agenda;
integration, one based on investors rights, with the land reform is off. There is money to bail out banks
interests of people incidental.”45 The alternative but not to pay for improved education and health
would be a form of economic integration that was services, let alone to bail out workers who are
more concerned with human development and the thrown out of their jobs as a result of the IMF’s
concerns of ordinary people than with the bottom macroeconomic mismanagement.47
line of banks and corporations.
In response to Stiglitz and others, defenders of
In response, defenders of the international the international economic system have argued that
finance and business system argue that investing in these worries are overblown and based on a limited
and supporting the current economic system is the analysis that does not take economic realities into
best (and possibly only) way to help poor people account. Moreover, defenders of economic global-
around the world—by using banks and other global ization argue that the critics of globalization have
economic infrastructure to invest in opportunities for actually made things worse by encouraging devel-
the impoverished. We’ve already seen that the World oping countries to feel that they are being taken
Bank is concerned with poverty reduction across the advantage of and that the global institutions that
globe. And international agreements (such as the are the best hope for development are hypocritical
0.7 percent aid target) are aimed at reducing poverty and mercenary. The economist Jagdish Bhagwati
by increasing foreign aid. has argued, for example, that globalization actually
does have a human face. He argues that economic
However, some criticize the methods employed globalization—by promoting competition in wages
by international institutions such as the World across international borders—has benefited women
Bank, IMF, and WTO. According to Joseph Stiglitz, by equalizing gender-based wage disparities, which
a Nobel Prize–winning economist, the key to prob- were more typical of countries where the wage
lems in developing nations has been these interna- gap was protected against global competition.48
tional financial institutions’ ideological support of To assess these arguments would require a much
strict capitalism. He argues that free markets and deeper examination of economic issues.
global competition are not the solution to all prob-
lems. And he worries about the lack of representa- A further criticism should be mentioned here,
tion of poorer countries: “these institutions are not which is the concern for corruption and self-interest.
representative of the nations they serve.”46 Some Just as the antiglobalization movement suspects

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

that the global financial sector is interested only in fertilizers and seeds; (2) improving basic health,
in profit, a similar suspicion is held by some who in particular through bed nets and medicines for
worry that local governments and aid organiza- malaria and treatments for AIDS; (3) investing in
tions are corrupt. Not all financial aid given to poor education, including meals for primary school chil-
countries actually gets directly to the people. Much dren; (4) providing power, transportation, and com-
of it, for example, covers consultants, administra- munications technologies; and (5) providing clean
tive costs, and debt relief. Furthermore, aid dollars water and sanitation.50 Others argue that changing
are used to purchase supplies and expertise that are intellectual property laws and freeing up patents
manufactured in the developed world. Journalist would help to make new technologies—such as bet-
Loretta Napoleoni argues that “foreign aid is mostly ter seeds for growing crops or beneficial medicines—
beneficial to those who give it” because aid creates available to poor people who could use them.51
a market for Western products.49 One of the dif- Some suggest that money is the most basic solution
ficult practical challenges to be confronted is how and that rich nations should live up to the standard
we can best provide aid in a global economy that of donating 0.7 percent of GNP.
includes corrupt local politicians as well as interna-
tional corporations and banks that are seeking to The global poverty numbers have been improv-
make a profit. ing, thanks to a concerted effort by international
organizations such as the United Nations and the
Poor countries suffer from serious political prob- World Bank. As noted above we are making prog-
lems; continuing civil wars and corrupt and unstable ress in dealing with other issues such as malaria
governments. Corruption and mismanagement have control, AIDS, and education. The rate of extreme
contributed not only to the poverty of the people but poverty has dropped below 10 percent. But we still
also to the hesitancy of wealthy countries to give have a long way to go when hundreds of millions
aid. Any solution to the issue of global poverty will of the people on earth live in extreme poverty. If we
have to deal with a variety of concerns: the prob- are going to make further progress, we will have to
lem of local corruption, the challenge of making sure take the problem of global justice seriously. But as
that aid is effective, and the concern that large mul- we’ve seen, there are others who think that helping
tinational banking and corporate concerns are seek- the global poor is not a matter of justice but only a
ing profit. But it is important to note that none of matter of charity. And there are other critics, such as
these empirical concerns changes the moral question Hardin, who appeal to Malthusian logic to argue that
of whether we ought to be concerned about the suf- it is not a good idea to help the poor.
fering of others in distant lands.
GLOBALIZATION AND ITS CRITICS
Solutions and Progress
Questions of global justice are complicated by the
The issues discussed in this chapter are complex. It fact of globalization. As the world’s economic and
will be difficult to solve issues like global poverty cultural forces become more interconnected, our
and to deal with the ongoing cultural, political, and understanding of our obligations to distant oth-
economic conflicts that are part of the era of global- ers may be shifting in a more global direction. But
ization. Nonetheless, some thinkers argue that there one might argue, to the contrary, that our primary
are some fairly obvious solutions to the most press- obligations to members of our own nation or culture
ing issues, such as poverty. We saw that Thomas remain more important than obligations to distant
Pogge proposed a resource tax and that Peter Singer others. To think about global justice, it is useful to
thought that we have a duty to donate to charity. understand the causes and effects of globalization.
Development economist Jeffrey Sachs has argued
that we should focus on five “development interven- One key causal factor in globalization is the
tions”: (1) boosting agriculture, with improvements development of technologies that improve eco-
nomic efficiency and allow for broader economic

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

and cultural influence. According to the journal- world “social space is no longer wholly mapped in
ist and scholar Robert Wright, “globalization dates terms of territorial places . . . and borders.”55 Thus
back to prehistory, when the technologically driven corporations as well as nongovernmental organiza-
expansion of commerce began.”52 Technological tions transcend local geographic constraints.
innovations—from roads and boats to writing, air-
line travel, and the Internet—allow for commercial Sometimes the processes of globalization have
and cultural interchanges among formerly isolated increased people’s understanding and sympathy for
peoples. The journalist Thomas Friedman described other peoples, while fostering tolerance, respect, and
globalization as a process that has made the world concern for human equality. The economic integra-
“flat.”53 People around the world are now connected tion of isolated communities often brings with it
in ways unimaginable twenty years ago, and the greater peace as people of different races and cul-
playing field in which they operate is now more tures trade and rub shoulders with one another.
even—provided that they have access to comput- But this globalizing process can also be the basis of
ers, Internet connections, and e-mail. This increases resentment and antipathy. One source of complaint
opportunities for collaboration and development. It is the way that globalization affects local economies.
also changes the nature of the economy. Another complaint involves the problem of cultural
diversity.
According to Jan Scholte, a leading expert on
globalization, there are at least five different inter- Economic Impacts
pretations of globalization, some of which are
overlapping: internationalization, liberalization, Many argue that globalization will increase produc-
universalization, modernization or Westernization, tivity and produce profit and innovation. But others
and deterritorialization or respatialization.54 Inter- complain that this produces certain costs that may
nationalization refers to “cross-border relations not be outweighed by such benefits. Outsourcing
between countries.” Among these are trade, is one example. Outsourcing occurs when part of a
finance, and communication, which create interna- process—say, tax preparation or customer service
tional interdependence among nations and peoples. information—is contracted out to workers in other
Liberalization focuses on the free and “open, border- countries where labor costs are cheaper. A related
less world economy.” Trade and foreign exchange, issue is offshoring. This differs from outsourcing in
as well as travel barriers, are abolished or reduced, that rather than taking some specific function and
making it possible to participate in the world as a hiring it out, entire factories or operational units
whole. Universalization refers to the various ways are moved to cheaper offshore locations. Outsourc-
in which a synthesis of cultures has taken place. ing and offshoring may help to produce profit and
This covers such things as having a common calen- lower the price of commodities. But they also under-
dar; shared communication technologies; and simi- mine opportunities in countries that lose jobs to
lar methods of manufacturing, farming, and means cheaper countries. Furthermore, if jobs are allowed
of transportation. Modernization or Westernization to go where the lowest-priced workers are located,
refers to the ways that “the social structures of this produces a “rush to the bottom” in which labor,
modernity”—capitalism, science, movies, music, and safety, and environmental standards are constantly
so forth—have spread throughout the world. Among undermined. Defenders of these practices argue that
the characteristics of modernity is an emphasis on in the long run globalization is good for everyone as
scientific rational thought in combination with tech- products become cheaper, capital flows toward labor
nological innovation—as well as a move toward sec- markets, and jobs and wealth are created.
ular institutions that are independent of traditional
religious organization. Deterritorialization or respa- Globalization will be evaluated in different
tialization refers to the fact that in the globalized ways by those who think in different ways about
economic and political issues. Proponents of free-
market capitalism see globalization as a further

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

stage of economic development as markets go global there was a social pyramid with a good leader at the
and capital, labor, and commodities are free to flow top, good executives in the middle, and civic-minded
around the world. Others worry that the develop- masses at the bottom.57
ment of global capitalism will come at the expense
of social welfare and the interests of the global poor Some critics worry that these sorts of relativ-
and working classes. Some praise the development ist appeals to culturally specific value systems pro-
of cosmopolitan social concern and international vide a justification for the continued exploitation of
laws that regulate wars, environmental impacts, oppressed groups within countries that are reluctant
and economic development. Others rue the demise to democratize and modernize. Criticism of demo-
of state sovereignty and the autonomy of the more cratic values may be used to serve the ideological
traditional nation-state. Another critical perspective purposes of those in charge and those who benefit
is more concerned that the development of global from inequality. Others maintain that an idea such
culture poses a threat to traditional familial, cultural, as “Asian values” is so broad and obscure as to
and religious values. be meaningless. The economist Amartya Sen con-
cludes, for example, that we must recognize diver-
Cultural Diversity sity within different cultures and that we should
avoid simplifying concepts such as “Western civi-
This last issue points toward cultural problems cre- lization,” “African cultures,” or “Asian values.” He
ated by modernization, Westernization, and secu- concludes, “the grand dichotomy between Asian
larization. Some have argued that there is a clash values and European values adds little to our under-
of civilizations in the world today—most notably standing, and much to the confounding of the nor-
between secular Westernized democracies and more mative basis of freedom and democracy.”58 There are
conservative, traditional societies.56 Those who liberal-democratic and capitalist elements in Asian
focus on such civilizational conflict may argue that cultures just as there are anti-liberal and authoritar-
there are deep cultural and historical values found ian strands in Western cultures.
in various “civilizations.” From this perspective, the
process of globalization will be fraught with conflict, Another line of supposed civilizational conflict
instead of being a process of harmonious integration is that between the Arab/Muslim world and the
and global development. European/Christian world. Some claim that “Islamic
values” do not fit within the increasingly globalized
One supposed civilizational fissure is that and Westernized economic system. Proponents of
between Western and Asian values. But some have Islamic values claim that Western market-oriented
argued that “Asian values” do not fit well with the economics does not help the poor and that the
values of Western liberal democracy and capitalism. secular nation-states of the West sacrifice a more
Defenders of “Asian values” may claim, for example, valuable religiously structured social system. Some
that the welfare of society and economic develop- argue that Islamic culture emphasizes a more collec-
ment ought to come first before political rights. They tivist and communitarian approach to social norms
may claim that human rights may temporarily be and structures and is thus is at odds with Western
put on hold for the sake of economic growth. Thus it individualism.59
would be better, they say, to give a starving person
a loaf of bread than a crate on which to stand and A more concrete issue is whether there are cultural
speak his mind. This idea was propounded in the or “civilizational” issues that exacerbate inequal-
1990s by Lee Kuan Yew, the former prime minister ity and the challenge of global poverty. Maybe cul-
of Singapore. Lee maintained that Asian values were tural values can help explain differences that exist
founded on a communitarian approach that could be across the globe. Consider, for example, that the
traced back to Confucian ethics. (See the discussion combined gross domestic product of all twenty-two
of communitarianism in Chapter 14.) He held that countries in the Arab League was about $2.87 tril-
lion with a population of more than 385 million.60

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

By comparison, Germany’s GDP is higher at around arise about whether the terrorist threat represents a
$3.9 trillion with a much smaller population of fundamental clash of values and about how Euro-
approximately 81 million.61 This wealth disparity pean nations ought to respond to instability in the
may help explain why poverty and food insecu- Middle East and the refugee problem.
rity are problems in some parts of the Arab world.
Of course, one might respond by pointing out that Defenders of the clash of civilization idea argue
even within the richest nation on earth—the United that there are cultural reasons that unemployment is
States—there are gross inequalities, hungry people, high and the economy is shaky in Muslim and Arab
and people living in poverty (we discussed some of countries. As an example, some cite a 2002 report
this in Chapter 14). It may be that cultural differ- from the United Nations Development Programme in
ences do not make all that much difference when it coordination with the Arab Fund for Economic and
comes to economics. Social Development, which held that Arab countries
have not advanced economically in modern times
A further problem may have to do with political because of “a shortage of freedom to speak, inno-
institutions. Poverty and food insecurity may have vate, and affect political life, a shortage of women’s
been exacerbated by political instability since the rights, and a shortage of quality education.”63 That
“Arab Spring” (revolutions across the Arab world in report criticized education in the Arab world with
2011). One recent report indicates that official pov- remaining illiteracy and educational gaps. Literacy
erty numbers are untrustworthy and that economic in the Arab world has hovered at around 70 percent
inequality including high unemployment was a chief compared to the literacy rate of the developed world,
cause of the uprising of Arab people in 2011. At which is around 95 percent. Some will attribute
any rate, the turmoil in the Arab world has resulted these kinds of disparities to cultural and religious
in violence, unrest, and civil war. Among the most differences. And similar disparities and challenges
prominent development is the civil war in Syria and are found in other parts of the world, with literacy
the development of the Islamic State in Syria and rates in sub-Saharan Africa even lower than rates in
Iraq (known as ISIS or ISIL). Political turmoil has led the Arab world—at around 65 percent.
to even further unemployment, food insecurity, and
a growing refugee crisis. Youth unemployment is at The general issue of cultural relativism shows up
50 percent in a number of Arab nations.62 Politi- here. Are we employing Eurocentric values when
cal instability makes it difficult to develop natural thinking about development issues? Is it possible
resources, create educational opportunities, and to focus on helping impoverished people and politi-
build businesses. cal refugees, while also respecting cultural practices
that may be contributing to poverty and instability?
The resulting war and dislocation has caused a And how can we encourage and support indigenous
flood of refugees to attempt to leave the Middle East cultural values that can help deal with these prob-
and head for European countries such as Germany. lems? Muslims practice zakat, or alms-giving, for
While some refugees have been admitted, in other example. How can aid to the poor be coordinated
cases these refugees have confronted closed borders with traditional religious practices such as this?
and have been turned back. Some have drowned in A further problem involves cultural and political con-
boats used to cross the sea; others remain in refugee flicts of the past. Will predominantly Muslim coun-
camps. While some European countries have wel- tries welcome aid that comes from the United States,
comed limited numbers of refugees from Syria and when, in the past, this aid has been used to prop up
the Middle East, in some cases, refugees have faced unpopular governments. In Egypt, for example, the
discrimination. And European countries remain wary United States supported the former president, Hosni
about admitting terrorists with allegiances to ISIS or Mubarak, who was driven from power by the Egyp-
other radical ideologies. We discussed recent terror tian people who gathered in protest during the Arab
attacks in Europe in Chapter 19. Difficult questions Spring. The United States had a difficult relationship

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

with the short-lived government of the Muslim discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. We surely want to
Brotherhood, which was driven from power in a say that if some culture has a practice of enslaving
2013 coup. The United States has subsequently sup- some of its members, this is not morally acceptable.
ported the government of the former general Abdel Which elements of globalization are good and bad is
Fattah el-Sisi. Similar political and historical prob- not always an easy matter to judge. Hopefully, how-
lems haunt aid efforts in the rest of the world, with ever, the ethical signposts, values, and principles
former colonial powers in the developed world deal- discussed here and elsewhere in this text can help
ing with residual political issues as they also try to determine the way we should go in a world that is,
fulfill obligations to assist. Do the British have more in ever-increasing ways, becoming one.
of an obligation to help in India or do the French
have more of an obligation to help in North Africa Let’s conclude this section by mentioning the
because of their past colonial relations? And how conflict between modernization and globalization
will assistance be perceived by former colonies? and traditional religion. The modernized world is a
secular one, which keeps traditional religious values
There is no denying that Western values domi- distinct from the public values of the political sphere.
nate global culture. Western-style clothing, adver- While religions have “gone global” during the past
tising, and products are becoming more and more millennia—spreading around the globe through con-
pervasive. Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, American pop quest and missionary work, economic and political
music, and American computer and Internet tech- globalization poses a threat for traditional religion.
nologies seem to be everywhere. Do people around The modern Western nation-state is grounded upon
the world admire or want U.S. goods? Or are these basic claims about human rights including the right
goods somehow foisted upon them by the forces of of freedom of religion. And the modern economy is a
corporate globalization? 24/7 activity oriented toward progress and develop-
ment, ignoring the ritual time frames and Sabbath
There is also cultural backlash against the values days of rest in traditional religions.
of Western consumerism and individualism. These
values are viewed with antipathy and resentment by Some critics of globalization, modernization, and
some people who hold other traditional cultural or secularization will argue that all of this is heading
religious values. For example, some traditional cul- in the wrong direction. Some will want to return
tures reject the lack of modest dress in women and to tradition—as religious fundamentalists do—
graphic and sexualized forms of popular entertain- withdrawing from the global economy and finding a
ment and music. Clearly, there are criticisms to be separate peace with the secular, modern world. Some
made of some elements of Western societies that are other fundamentalists may take up arms against the
showing up around the world. On the other hand, global system—as religious terrorists do. Others will
we may want to argue that other elements of mod- want to find ways to humanize and universalize tra-
ern culture ought to become universally accepted. ditional religious values. And others will insist that
Take, for example, the position of women. Should the way forward must be to find universal human
modern notions of individual rights and freedoms values that can transcend cultural and religious dif-
and equality for women become the norm? There ferences and that can be used to deal with the diffi-
are those who argue against this. They would retain cult challenges of the future, such as those we have
individual cultural and religious practices regarding discussed in this book.
the position of women. Is it colonialist or Eurocentric
to want to encourage development toward a more In the readings in this chapter, utilitarian philos-
secular and liberal social and political system? opher Peter Singer argues that the affluent have a
moral obligation to help those who are living at sub-
Can we actually judge the practices of another sistence levels. An article by Garret Hardin makes a
culture? Are one culture’s values as good as different argument—against the idea of helping the
any other? This is the issue of ethical relativism poor.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

NOTES June 25, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/
blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/31/join-wall-street-
1. Ian Goldin and Mike Mariathasan, The Butterfly save-the-world/
Defect: How Globalization Creates Systematic 12. Garrett Hardin, “Living on a Lifeboat,” Bioscience
Risks, and What to Do About it (Princeton, NJ: 24 (1974): 561–68.
Princeton University Press, 2014). 13. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. by the
Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Online
2. Thomas Fuller, “Deadly Collapse in Cambodia Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight, II–II,
Renews Safety Concerns,” New York Times, Q 66, Art. 7, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
May 16, 2013, accessed June 25, 2013, 3066.htm (accessed July 26, 2013).
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world/asia/ 14. Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova, “Does
cambodia-factory-ceiling-collapse.html?_r=0 Poverty Cause Terrorism?” New Republic, June 24,
2002, 27.
3. Charles Duhigg, “In China, Human Costs Are Built 15. Jared Diamond, “What’s Your Consumption Factor?”
into an iPad,” New York Times, January 25, 2012, New York Times, January 2, 2008, accessed
accessed July 14, 2013, http://www.nytimes. June 25, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/
com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad- 02/opinion/02diamond.html?pagewanted=all
and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china. 16. John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA:
html?pagewanted=all Harvard University Press, 2001).
17. Ibid., 37.
4. Peter Grier, “The Walt Disney Company Pulls Out 18. Jim Yardley, “Made in Bangladesh: Export
of Bangladesh: Will That Make Workers Safer?,” Powerhouse Feels Pangs of Labor Strife,” New
Christian Science Monitor, May 3, 2013, accessed York Times, August 23, 2012, accessed June 20,
June 25, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/ 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/world/
2013/0503/The-Walt-Disney-Company-pulls-out- asia/as-bangladesh-becomes-export-powerhouse-
of-Bangladesh-Will-that-make-workers-safer labor-strife-erupts.html?pagewanted=1; “Worker
Safety in Bangladesh and Beyond,” New York
5. See Alex Nicholls and Charlotte Opal, Fair Trade: Times, May 4, 2013, accessed June 20, 2013,
Market Driven Ethical Consumption (London: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/opinion/
SAGE Publications, 2005). sunday/worker-safety-in-bangladesh-and-beyond
.html
6. See Peter Griffiths, “Ethical Objections to Fair 19. World Bank, “World Bank Forecasts Global Poverty
Trade,” Journal of Business Ethics 105 (2012): to Fall Below 10% for First Time; Major Hurdles
357–73. Remain in Goal to End Poverty by 2030,” October 4,
2015, http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
7. “Within Our Grasp: A World Free of Poverty—World release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-
Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim’s Speech at poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-
Georgetown University,” April 2, 2013, accessed hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030
June 25, 2013, http://www.worldbank.org/en/ (accessed April 12, 2016).
news/speech/2013/04/02/world-bank-group- 20. “World Bank: ‘Extreme Poverty’ to Fall Below 10%
president-jim-yong-kims-speech-at-georgetown- of World Population for First Time,” The Guardian,
university October 5, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/
society/2015/oct/05/world-bank-extreme-poverty-
8. Thomas Pogge, “Are We Violating the Human to-fall-below-10-of-world-population-for-first-time
Rights of the World’s Poor?,” Yale Human Rights & (accessed April 12, 2016).
Development Journal 14, no. 2 (2011): 1–33. 21. “The End of Poverty,” Time, March 14, 2005, 47.

9. Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008), 211–12.

10. Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,”
Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, no. 3 (1972):
231.

11. Dylan Matthews, “Join Wall Street, Save the
World,” Washington Post, May 31, 2013, accessed

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

22. World Health Organization, “Ten Facts on Malaria,” 35. Dinesh D’Souza, “Two Cheers for Colonialism,”
November 2015, http://www.who.int/features/ Chronicle of Higher Education, May 10, 2002.
factfiles/malaria/en/ (accessed April 12, 2016).
36. Dinesh D’Souza, Obama’s America: Unmaking the
23. Central Intelligence Agency, “The World Factbook: American Dream (Washington, D.C.: Regnery
Life Expectancy at Birth,” 2015, https://www.cia Publishing, 2012), 219.
.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
rankorder/2102rank.html (accessed April 12 37. D’Souza, “Two Cheers for Colonialism.”
2016). 38. “United States Summary Information,” Environ-

24. World Bank, “Gross Domestic Product 2014,” mental Working Group, Farm Subsidies, accessed
April 11, 2016, http://databank.worldbank.org/ July 16, 2013, http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?
data/download/GDP.pdf (accessed April 12, 2016). fips=00000
39. Gary S. Fields, Working Hard, Working Poor: A Global
25. World Bank, “Per Capita GDP,” http://data.world- Journey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 114.
bank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?order=wbapi_ 40. Tim Johnson, “Free Trade: As U.S. Corn Flows
data_value_2014+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_ South, Mexicans Stop Farming,” McClatchy News,
value-last&sort=asc (accessed April 12, 2016). February 1, 2011, accessed June 25, 2013,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/01/107871/
26. See “The 0.7% Target: An In-Depth Look,” free-trade-us-corn-flows-south.html#.UcyNyz7Eo_
Millennium Project, accessed June 25, 2013, http:// s#storylink=cpy
www.unmillenniumproject.org/press/07.htm 41. “U.S., Other Powers Kick Russia out of G8,” CNN,
March 24, 2014, http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/
27. “Guess How Much of Uncle Sam’s Money Goes to 24/politics/obama-europe-trip/ (accessed April 12,
Foreign Aid. Guess Again!” NPR, February 10, 2016).
2015, http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/ 42. Adrian Morrow, “Toronto Police Were Overwhelmed
2015/02/10/383875581/guess-how-much-of- at G20, Review Reveals,” Globe and Mail, June 23,
uncle-sams-money-goes-to-foreign-aid-guess-again 2011, accessed July 1, 2013, http://www
(accessed April 12, 2016). .theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto-police-
were-overwhelmed-at-g20-review-reveals/
28. Ken Hackett, “Surprise! Americans Want to ‘Slash’ article2073215/
Foreign Aid – to 10 Times Its Current Size,” 43. Naomi Klein, interview on PBS, April 21, 2001,
Christian Science Monitor, March 7, 2011, accessed July 1, 2013, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/
accessed June 30, 2013, http://www.csmonitor commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_
.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0307/Surprise!- naomiklein.html
Americans-want-to-slash-foreign-aid-to-10-times- 44. Noam Chomsky, quoted in Jack Lule, Globalization
its-current-size and Media: Global Village of Babel (Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2012), 11.
29. Ibid. 45. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents
30. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel- (New York: Norton, 2003), 19.
46. Ibid., 80–81.
opment, “Net Official Development Assistance,” 47. Jagdish Bhagwati, In Defense of Globalization
April 2015, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), see
documentupload/ODA%202014%20Tables%20 especially the Afterword.
and%20Charts.pdf (accessed April 12, 2016). 48. Loretta Napoleoni, Rogue Economics (New York:
31. Ibid. Seven Stories Press, 2011), 195.
32. “UK Passes Bill to Honour Pledge of 0.7% Foreign 49. Jeffrey Sachs, The End of Poverty: Economic Pos-
Aid Target,” The Guardian, March 9, 2015, http:// sibilities for Our Time (New York: Penguin Press,
www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/ 2005), Chapter 12.
mar/09/uk-passes-bill-law-aid-target-percentage-
income (accessed April 12, 2016).
33. Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (New
York: Grove Press, 1968).
34. Ibid., 96.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

50. See Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human 58. See essays in Ali Mohammadi, Islam Encountering
Rights (op. cit.), Section 9.2. Globalization (London: Routledge, 2002).

51. Robert Wright, “Two Years Later, a Thousand Years 59. World Bank Data, http://data.worldbank.org/
Ago,” New York Times, Op-Ed., September 11, 2003. country/ARB (accessed April 13, 2016).

52. Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief 60. World Bank Data, http://data.worldbank.org/
History of the Twenty-First Century (New York: country/germany (accessed April 13, 2016).
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005), 8.
61. International Food Policy Research Institute,
53. Jan Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction, “Beyond the Arab Awakening: Policies and
2nd ed. (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005), Investment for Poverty Reduction and Food
15–17. Security,” February 2012, accessed June 30, 2013,
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/
54. Ibid. pr25.pdf
55. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations
62. Thomas L. Friedman, “Arabs at the Crossroads,”
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996). New York Times, July 3, 2002, A19.
56. Michael D. Barr, Cultural Politics and Asian Values:
63. “Human Development Data for the Arab States,”
The Tepid War (London: Routledge, 2002), Chapter 3. United Nations Development Programme, accessed
57. Amartya Sen, Human Rights and Asian Values July 2, 2013, http://www.arab-hdr.org/data/
indicators/2012-18.aspx
(New York: Carnegie Council on Human Rights,
1997), 31.

READING

The Singer Solution to World Poverty

PETER SINGER

For more chapter resources and activities, go to MindTap.

Study Questions

1. Explain how Singer’s reasoning is “utilitarian.”

2. Does it matter that there are lots of people who could help and who need help?

3. How does Singer differentiate between luxury goods and the basic needs of the poor?

In the Brazilian film “Central Station,” Dora is a sold for transplantation. Perhaps Dora knew this
retired schoolteacher who makes ends meet by sit- all along, but after her neighbor’s plain speaking,

ting at the station writing letters for illiterate people. she spends a troubled night. In the morning Dora

Suddenly she has an opportunity to pocket $1,000. resolves to take the boy back.

All she has to do is persuade a homeless 9-year-old Suppose Dora had told her neighbor that it is a

boy to follow her to an address she has been given. tough world, other people have nice new TV’s too,

(She is told he will be adopted by wealthy foreign- and if selling the kid is the only way she can get

ers.) She delivers the boy, gets the money, spends one, well, he was only a street kid. She would then

some of it on a television set and settles down to

enjoy her new acquisition. Her neighbor spoils the Peter Singer, “The Singer Solution To World Poverty,” The New York
fun, however, by telling her that the boy was too Times Magazine, September 5, 1999. Reprinted by permission of
old to be adopted—he will be killed and his organs the author.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

have become, in the eyes of the audience, a mon- In his 1996 book, Living High and Letting Die,
ster. She redeems herself only by being prepared to the New York University philosopher Peter Unger
bear considerable risks to save the boy. presented an ingenious series of imaginary exam-
ples designed to probe our intuitions about whether
At the end of the movie, in cinemas in the afflu- it is wrong to live well without giving substantial
ent nations of the world, people who would have amounts of money to help people who are hungry,
been quick to condemn Dora if she had not rescued malnourished or dying from easily treatable illnesses
the boy go home to places far more comfortable than like diarrhea. Here’s my paraphrase of one of these
her apartment. In fact, the average family in the examples:
United States spends almost one-third of its income
on things that are no more necessary to them than Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most
Dora’s new TV was to her. Going out to nice restau- of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car,
rants, buying new clothes because the old ones are a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure.
no longer stylish, vacationing at beach resorts—so The Bugatti is his pride and joy. In addition to the
much of our income is spent on things not essential pleasure he gets from driving and caring for his car,
to the preservation of our lives and health. Donated Bob knows that its rising market value means that
to one of a number of charitable agencies, that he will always be able to sell it and live comfort-
money could mean the difference between life and ably after retirement. One day when Bob is out for
death for children in need. a drive, he parks the Bugatti near the end of a rail-
way siding and goes for a walk up the track. As he
All of which raises a question: In the end, what is does so, he sees that a runaway train, with no one
the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells aboard, is running down the railway track. Looking
a homeless child to organ peddlers and an Ameri- farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a
can who already has a TV and upgrades to a better child very likely to be killed by the runaway train.
one—knowing that the money could be donated to He can’t stop the train and the child is too far away
an organization that would use it to save the lives of to warn of the danger, but he can throw a switch
kids in need? that will divert the train down the siding where his
Bugatti is parked. Then nobody will be killed—but
Of course, there are several differences between the train will destroy his Bugatti. Thinking of his joy
the two situations that could support different in owning the car and the financial security it rep-
moral judgments about them. For one thing, to be resents, Bob decides not to throw the switch. The
able to consign a child to death when he is stand- child is killed. For many years to come, Bob enjoys
ing right in front of you takes a chilling kind of owning his Bugatti and the financial security it
heartlessness; it is much easier to ignore an appeal represents.
for money to help children you will never meet.
Yet for a utilitarian philosopher like myself—that Bob’s conduct, most of us will immediately
is, one who judges whether acts are right or wrong respond, was gravely wrong. Unger agrees. But then
by their consequences—if the upshot of the Ameri- he reminds us that we, too, have opportunities to
can’s failure to donate the money is that one more save the lives of children. We can give to organi-
kid dies on the streets of a Brazilian city, then it is, zations like UNICEF or Oxfam America. How much
in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the would we have to give one of these organizations to
organ peddlers. But one doesn’t need to embrace have a high probability of saving the life of a child
my utilitarian ethic to see that, at the very least, threatened by easily preventable diseases? (I do not
there is a troubling incongruity in being so quick believe that children are more worth saving than
to condemn Dora for taking the child to the organ adults, but since no one can argue that children
peddlers while, at the same time, not regarding the have brought their poverty on themselves, focusing
American consumer’s behavior as raising a serious on them simplifies the issues.) Unger called up some
moral issue.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

experts and used the information they provided to organizations. The problem is that most of them
offer some plausible estimates that include the cost aren’t doing it. Does this mean that it is all right for
of raising money, administrative expenses and the you not to do it?
cost of delivering aid where it is most needed. By his
calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly Suppose that there were more owners of priceless
2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old— vintage cars—Carol, Dave, Emma, Fred and so on,
offering safe passage through childhood’s most dan- down to Ziggy—all in exactly the same situation as
gerous years. To show how practical philosophical Bob, with their own siding and their own switch, all
argument can be, Unger even tells his readers that sacrificing the child in order to preserve their own
they can easily donate funds by using their credit cherished car. Would that make it all right for Bob to
card and calling one of these toll-free numbers . . . do the same? To answer this question affirmatively
(Oxfam can be found at www.oxfam.org; Unicef can is to endorse follow-the-crowd ethics—the kind of
be found at http://www.supportunicef.org/). ethics that led many Germans to look away when
the Nazi atrocities were being committed. We do
Now you, too, have the information you need to not excuse them because others were behaving no
save a child’s life. How should you judge yourself better.
if you don’t do it? Think again about Bob and his
Bugatti. Unlike Dora, Bob did not have to look into We seem to lack a sound basis for drawing a
the eyes of the child he was sacrificing for his own clear moral line between Bob’s situation and that of
material comfort. The child was a complete stranger any reader of this article with $200 to spare who
to him and too far away to relate to in an intimate, does not donate it to an overseas aid agency. These
personal way. Unlike Dora, too, he did not mislead readers seem to be acting at least as badly as Bob
the child or initiate the chain of events imperiling was acting when he chose to let the runaway train
him. In all these respects, Bob’s situation resembles hurtle toward the unsuspecting child. In the light of
that of people able but unwilling to donate to over- this conclusion, I trust that many readers will reach
seas aid and differs from Dora’s situation. for the phone and donate that $200. Perhaps you
should do it before reading further.
If you still think that it was very wrong of Bob
not to throw the switch that would have diverted the Now that you have distinguished yourself mor-
train and saved the child’s life, then it is hard to see ally from people who put their vintage cars ahead of
how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to a child’s life, how about treating yourself and your
send money to one of the organizations listed above. partner to dinner at your favorite restaurant? But
Unless, that is, there is some morally important wait. The money you will spend at the restaurant
difference between the two situations that I have could also help save the lives of children overseas!
overlooked. True, you weren’t planning to blow $200 tonight,
but if you were to give up dining out just for one
Is it the practical uncertainties about whether aid month, you would easily save that amount. And
will really reach the people who need it? Nobody what is one month’s dining out, compared to a
who knows the world of overseas aid can doubt that child’s life? There’s the rub. Since there are a lot of
such uncertainties exist. But Unger’s figure of $200 desperately needy children in the world, there will
to save a child’s life was reached after he had made always be another child whose life you could save
conservative assumptions about the proportion of for another $200. Are you therefore obliged to keep
the money donated that will actually reach its target. giving until you have nothing left? At what point
can you stop?
One genuine difference between Bob and those
who can afford to donate to overseas aid organiza- Hypothetical examples can easily become farcical.
tions but don’t is that only Bob can save the child Consider Bob. How far past losing the Bugatti should
on the tracks, whereas there are hundreds of mil- he go? Imagine that Bob had got his foot stuck in
lions of people who can give $200 to overseas aid the track of the siding, and if he diverted the train,

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

then before it rammed the car it would also amputate that would spread the burden more equitably across
his big toe. Should he still throw the switch? What if all taxpayers.
it would amputate his foot? His entire leg?
Yet the question of how much we ought to give
As absurd as the Bugatti scenario gets when is a matter to be decided in the real world—and that,
pushed to extremes, the point it raises is a serious sadly, is a world in which we know that most people
one: only when the sacrifices become very signifi- do not, and in the immediate future will not, give
cant indeed would most people be prepared to say substantial amounts to overseas aid agencies. We
that Bob does nothing wrong when he decides not know, too, that at least in the next year, the United
to throw the switch. Of course, most people could be States Government is not going to meet even the
wrong; we can’t decide moral issues by taking opin- very modest United Nations-recommended target of
ion polls. But consider for yourself the level of sacri- 0.7 percent of gross national product; at the moment
fice that you would demand of Bob, and then think it lags far below that, at 0.09 percent, not even half
about how much money you would have to give of Japan’s 0.22 percent or a tenth of Denmark’s 0.97
away in order to make a sacrifice that is roughly percent. Thus we know that the money we can give
equal to that. It’s almost certainly much, much more beyond that theoretical “fair share” is still going to
than $200. For most middle-class Americans, it save lives that would otherwise be lost. While the
could easily be more like $200,000. idea that no one need do more than his or her fair
share is a powerful one, should it prevail if we know
Isn’t it counterproductive to ask people to do so that others are not doing their fair share and that
much? Don’t we run the risk that many will shrug children will die preventable deaths unless we do
their shoulders and say that morality, so conceived, more than our fair share? That would be taking fair-
is fine for saints but not for them? I accept that we ness too far.
are unlikely to see, in the near or even medium-term
future, a world in which it is normal for wealthy Thus this ground for limiting how much we ought
Americans to give the bulk of their wealth to strang- to give also fails. In the world as it is now, I can
ers. When it comes to praising or blaming people for see no escape from the conclusion that each one of
what they do, we tend to use a standard that is rela- us with wealth surplus to his or her essential needs
tive to some conception of normal behavior. Com- should be giving most of it to help people suffering
fortably off Americans who give, say, 10 percent of from poverty so dire as to be life-threatening. That’s
their income to overseas aid organizations are so far right. I’m saying that you shouldn’t buy that new
ahead of most of their equally comfortable fellow car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that
citizens that I wouldn’t go out of my way to chastise pricey new suit. After all, a $1,000 suit could save
them for not doing more. Nevertheless, they should five children’s lives.
be doing much more, and they are in no position
to criticize Bob for failing to make the much greater So how does my philosophy break down in dol-
sacrifice of his Bugatti. lars and cents? An American household with an
income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annu-
At this point various objections may crop up. ally on necessities, according to the Conference
Someone may say, “If every citizen living in the Board, a nonprofit economic research organization.
affluent nations contributed his or her share I Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a
wouldn’t have to make such a drastic sacrifice, year, donations to help the world’s poor should be as
because long before such levels were reached, the close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required
resources would have been there to save the lives of for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So
all those children dying from lack of food or medical a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly
care. So why should I give more than my fair share?” check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple:
Another, related, objection is that the Government whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not
ought to increase its overseas aid allocations, since necessities, should be given away.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES

Now, evolutionary psychologists tell us that then that is the way things are. If we don’t do it,
human nature just isn’t sufficiently altruistic to then we should at least know that we are failing
make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so to live a morally decent life—not because it is good
much for strangers. On the facts of human nature, to wallow in guilt but because knowing where we
they might be right, but they would be wrong to should be going is the first step toward heading in
draw a moral conclusion from those facts. If it is that direction.
the case that we ought to do things that, predict-
ably, most of us won’t do, then let’s face that fact When Bob first grasped the dilemma that faced
head-on. Then, if we value the life of a child more him as he stood by that railway switch, he must
than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we have thought how extraordinarily unlucky he was
dine out we will know that we could have done to be placed in a situation in which he must choose
something better with our money. If that makes liv- between the life of an innocent child and the sacri-
ing a morally decent life extremely arduous, well, fice of most of his savings. But he was not unlucky
at all. We are all in that situation.

READING

Living on a Lifeboat

GARRETT HARDIN

For more chapter resources and activities, go to MindTap.

Study Questions

1. Is earth best described as a spaceship or a lifeboat—what is Hardin’s explanation for his answer to this question?
2. How does Hardin explain and utilize the idea of the tragedy of the commons?
3. How does Hardin respond to the claim that his view is ethnocentric and bigoted?

No generation has viewed the problem of the commons (Hardin 1968). These suicidal policies are
survival of the human species as seriously as attractive because they mesh with what we unthink-
we have. Inevitably, we have entered this world ingly take to be the ideals of “the best people.” What
of concern through the door of metaphor. Environ- is missing in the idealistic view is an insistence that
mentalists have emphasized the image of the earth rights and responsibilities must go together. The
as a spaceship—Spaceship Earth. Kenneth Boulding “generous” attitude of all too many people results in
(1966) is the principal architect of this metaphor. It asserting inalienable rights while ignoring or deny-
is time, he says, that we replace the wasteful “cow- ing matching responsibilities.
boy economy” of the past with the frugal “space-
ship economy” required for continued survival in For the metaphor of a spaceship to be correct
the limited world we now see ours to be. The meta- the aggregate of people on board would have to
phor is notably useful in justifying pollution control be under unitary sovereign control (Ophuls 1974).
measures. A true ship always has a captain. It is conceivable
that a ship could be run by a committee. But it could
Unfortunately, the image of a spaceship is also not possibly survive if its course were determined
used to promote measures that are suicidal. One of
these is a generous immigration policy, which is BioScience, Vol. 24, No. 10 (Oct. 1974), pp. 561–568. Published
only a particular instance of a class of policies that by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of
are in error because they lead to the tragedy of the Biological Sciences, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1296629.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202

Chapter ❮❮ Global Justice and Globalization

by bickering tribes that claimed rights without let us assume our boat has a capacity of 10 more,
responsibilities. making 60. (This, however, is to violate the engi-
neering principle of the “safety factor.” A new
What about Spaceship Earth? It certainly has no plant disease or a bad change in the weather may
captain, and no executive committee. The United decimate our population if we don’t preserve some
Nations is a toothless tiger, because the signato- excess capacity as a safety factor.)
ries of its charter wanted it that way. The spaceship
metaphor is used only to justify spaceship demands The 50 of us in the lifeboat see 100 others swim-
on common resources without acknowledging cor- ming in the water outside, asking for admission to
responding spaceship responsibilities. the boat, or for handouts. How shall we respond to
their calls? There are several possibilities.
An understandable fear of decisive action leads
people to embrace “incrementalism”—moving toward One. We may be tempted to try to live by the Chris-
reform by tiny stages. As we shall see, this strategy tian ideal of being “our brother’s keeper,” or by the
is counterproductive in the area discussed here if it Marxian ideal (Marx 1875) of “from each according
means accepting rights before responsibilities. Where to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Since
human survival is at stake, the acceptance of respon- the needs of all are the same, we take all the needy
sibilities is a precondition to the acceptance of rights, into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat with a
if the two cannot be introduced simultaneously. capacity of 60. The boat is swamped, and everyone
drowns. Complete justice, complete catastrophe.
LIFEBOAT ETHICS
Two. Since the boat has an unused excess capacity
Before taking up certain substantive issues let us of 10, we admit just 10 more to it. This has the dis-
look at an alternative metaphor, that of a lifeboat. advantage of getting rid of the safety factor, for which
In developing some relevant examples the following action we will sooner or later pay dearly. Moreover,
numerical values are assumed. Approximately two- which 10 do we let in? “First come, first served?” The
thirds of the world is desperately poor, and only one- best 10? The neediest 10? How do we discriminate?
third is comparatively rich. Metaphorically, each rich And what do we say to the 90 who are excluded?
nation amounts to a lifeboat full of comparatively
rich people. The poor of the world are in other, much Three. Admit no more to the boat and preserve
more crowded lifeboats. Continuously, so to speak, the small safety factor. Survival of the people in the
the poor fall out of their lifeboats and swim for a lifeboat is then possible (though we shall have to be
while in the water outside, hoping to be admitted to on our guard against boarding parties).
a rich lifeboat, or in some other way to benefit from
the “goodies” on board. What should the passengers The last solution is abhorrent to many people. It
on a rich lifeboat do? This is the central problem of is unjust, they say. Let us grant that it is.
“the ethics of a lifeboat.”
“I feel guilty about my good luck,” say some.
First we must acknowledge that each lifeboat The reply to this is simple: Get out and yield your
is effectively limited in capacity. The land of every place to others. Such a selfless action might satisfy
nation has a limited carrying capacity. The exact the conscience of those who are addicted to guilt but
limit is a matter for argument, but the energy crunch it would not change the ethics of the lifeboat. The
is convincing more people every day that we have needy person to whom a guilt-addict yields his place
already exceeded the carrying capacity of the land. will not himself feel guilty about his sudden good
We have been living on “capital”- stored petroleum luck. (If he did he would not climb aboard.) The
and coal-and soon we must live on income alone. net result of conscience-stricken people relinquish-
ing their unjustly held positions is the elimination of
Let us look at only one lifeboat—ours. The ethical their kind of conscience from the lifeboat. The life-
problem is the same for all, and is as follows. Here boat, as it were, purifies itself of guilt. The ethics of
we sit, say 50 people in a lifeboat. To be generous, the lifeboat persist, unchanged by such momentary
aberrations.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202