Poverty, Affluence,

and Derivative
Duties
By: Taylor Rodrigues
St Andrewss 2014 Philosophy Honors Reading Party

Talk Structure
1. The state of global poverty
2. Peter Singers non-derivative positive duty approach
3. Thomas Pogges derivative positive duty approach
4. Objections to Thomas Pogge
1. Harm or unjust harm?
2. Moral time limits
5. Questions

Global Income Distribution
1.30%
17.70%
81%
The poorest 44%
The middle 40%
The richest 16%
Source: Chen and Ravallion, 2004
The Facts About Global Poverty

2.7bn+ live below the severe poverty line (US$2/day)
(Chen and Ravallion, 2004)
18m die every year from poverty-related causes
(WHO 2004)
865m are chronically malnourished
(FAO 2012 report)
2.6bn lack basic sanitation
(WHO 2014)
780m lack access so safe drinking water
(WHO/UNICEF 2012)
The Facts About Global Aid
The UNs target for development aid is 0.7% of GDP
Only 4 countries meet this target (Sweden 0.99%, Norway
0.88%, Denmark 0.82% and Netherlands 0.80%)
The UK government gives 0.48% and the USA gives 0.19%
USA spends 4.2% of their GDP ($600bn+) on their military
Citizens of Scandinavian countries donate the most to foreign
aid privately (Sweden 0.5%, Denmark 0.48%, Netherlands
0.45% and Norway 0.4%)
Citizens of the rest of the developed world donate far less
Severe poverty would be eradicated if the richest 16%
donated 0.7-2% of their income to the severely poor
Source: World Bank 2012, Development Assistance Committee
Ethical Duties
Ethical
Duties
Positive
Duties
Non-
Derivative
Derivative
Negative
Duties
The Non-Derivative Approach
Many philosophers believe that the global rich ought to do
more to help the global poor
Traditionally many philosophers have supported this claim by
appealing to non-derivative positive duties
E.g Henry Shue, Onora ONeill and Peter Singer
In 1972 Peter Singer published Famine, Affluence and
Morality
The purpose of his article is to establish that the global rich have
duties of justice to help the poor.
Donating to the global poor is not a matter of beneficence or
supererogation


Some Preliminary Cases
The pond: You can save a young child from drowning in a
muddy pond at the expense of ruining your clothes
The Sedan: You can save a hikers leg at expense of ruining the
new upholstery in your car.
Singers Initial Argument
P1: If it is in our power to prevent something bad from
happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of
(comparable) moral importance, we ought morally, to do it
P2: Deaths from drowning and the loss of limbs are bad.
P3: It is within our power to prevent the child from dying or
the hiker from losing their leg without sacrificing anything of
(comparable) moral significance.
C: We ought to save the child from drowning and the hikers
limb

*Singers argument can be made stronger by reading in the
(comparable)
The Global Poverty Argument
P1: If it is in our power to prevent something bad from
happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of
(comparable) moral importance, we ought morally, to do it
P2: Deaths and suffering from severe poverty are bad.
P3: It is within the global richs power to prevent (most)
deaths and suffering caused by severe poverty without
sacrificing anything of (comparable) moral significance.
C: The global rich ought to prevent (most) death and suffering
caused by severe poverty.

*Singers argument can be made stronger by reading in the
(comparable)


Clarifications
What it of comparable moral significance to reducing severe
poverty?
Something of equal or greater goodness (e.g. education)
Something of equal or greater badness (e.g. more death and
suffering)
Something inherently wrong (e.g. gross human rights violations)
Physical distance makes no direct moral difference
We should accept a principle of impartiality/equality
We must give until the point of marginal utility: the point at which
by giving more one would cause oneself and ones dependents as
much suffering as one would prevent
Singer sees no reason to prefer the moderate argument



The Libertarian Objection
Opponents of foreign aid often oppose it on libertarian
grounds
Libertarians deny that any non-derivative positives duties are
duties of justice
E.g. they do not accept Singers P1
Are proponents of foreign aid caught in an intractable
disagreement with the opponents of foreign aid?
Libertarian Ethics
The non-aggression principle (NAP): aggression in inherently
illegitimate
Aggression includes threats and acts that interfere with a
persons rights
From the NAP libertarians derive that acts like assault, theft,
arbitrary detention, and fraud are immoral
The NAP does not rule out self-defence
Derivative positive duties of justice can be derived from the NAP
(e.g. duties of rectification)
Thomas Pogges Argument
P1: All individuals have a duty not cooperate in the
imposition of a coercive institutional order that foreseeably
and avoidable leaves human rights unfulfilled without making
reasonable efforts to aid its victims and to promote
institutional reform
P2: Most of the global rich are cooperating in the imposition
of a coercive institutional order that foreseeably and avoidably
leaves human rights unfulfilled without making a reasonable
efforts to aid its victims and to promote institutional reform.
C: The global rich should cease cooperating in the imposition
of a coercive institutional order that foreseeably and avoidably
leaves human rights unfulfilled or start making reasonable
efforts to aid its victims and to promote institutional reform.
Defence of P2
Pogge argues that the global institutional order (GIO) is
causally responsible for most severe poverty
The GIO consists of global institutions (e.g. WTO, IMF, etc.)
and the international legal system
He believes the GIO is intentionally set up to benefit
developed country citizens and the affluent elite in poor
countries
The GIO is not even procedurally fair to poor countries
WTO negotiations allow developed countries to put high tariffs on
developing countries goods they deem unfairly cheap yet
restrict developing countries from putting any tariffs on
developed world goods
Further Defence of P2
The international legal system extends resource and
borrowing privileges to whoever has effective power over a
country
Rich countries allow domestic firms to tax deduct bribes paid
in poor countries
The GIO allows firms from developed countries not to pay for
negative externalities (e.g. pollution and dumping)
Rich countries allow their firms to sell arms to abusive regimes
Rich countries accumulated much of their wealth through a
violent history (e.g. colonialism and resource exploitation)
Global international property laws deny millions life saving
medication
Clarifications
The GIO foreseeably gives rise to a human rights deficit
because reasonable agents can predict it will
The GIO avoidably gives rise to a human rights deficit because
there is a feasible comparable GIO that would not produce as
large of a humans rights deficit
Pogge claims that we all have a human right not to be
deprived of the basic goods necessary to live a flourishing
human lifeand the GIO violates this right
What are reasonable efforts reasonable efforts to aid the
victims of the GIO and to promote institutional reform?
Donate ~1% of gross income to severe poverty alleviation + vote
for political parties that want to reform the GIO + ???
Singer vs Pogge
The derivative positive duty approach is superior to non-
derivative positive duty approach to human poverty
1. Approaches like Pogge can convince libertarians but
approaches like Singer cannot
2. All else being equal we are more strongly motivated by
negative duties and derivative positive duties than non-
derivative duties

Tans Objection to Pogge
Kok-Chor Tan: The GIO harms the poor but not unjustly so
Pogges claim that the rich harm the poor by forcing a
particular GIO on them presupposes that the poor would be
better off it the rich do not force any GIO on them
The problem of global poverty is not that of the rich getting
in the way but of that of the rich refusing to cooperate with
the poor in certain ways (e.g. unfair trade terms)
Pogge can either (1) invoke non-derivative positive duties to
prove the rich are harming the poor or (2) he can only make
the minimal claim that the rich only need to be procedurally
fair to the poor
If he makes (1) he loses the libertarian, if he takes (2) it is
unlikely that most severe poverty will be extinguished
A Poggeian Response
Pogge does not claim the rich have a duty to institute a GIO
that provides basic goods to everyone or any other non-
derivative positive duty to the poor
Pogges P1 is a negative duty which derives a positive duty of
rectification if it is violated
The global rich have already violated the negative duty in P1.
Tan is wrong to think that, ethically speaking, they are free just
to cease contact with the global poor.
The global poor are justified in demanding compensation from
the global rich
Procedural fairness does not ensure a system does not
unjustly harm individuals


Does Pogge Let The Rich Off Easy?
Pogge asserts that developed country denizens are only
responsible for the effects of their participation in the recent
GIO, say the last 25 years
He does not justify this claim
Is there a need for long-term rectification?
Should the global rich be morally excused of their
contributions to the GIO if they have not rectified their
contriubtions after 25 years?
If so, why?
Moral Time Limits On Responsibility
Common law reasons:
1. Persons with legitimate claims should pursue them diligently
2. Defendants might lose evidence necessary to defend
themselves from old claims
3. Old claims are fuelled more by cruelty than justice
A pragmatic reason: if we ask people to rectify too much, they
will rectify less than if we made a smaller request
Moral Time Limits On Responsibility
1. Persons with legitimate claims should pursue them diligently
The global poor do not have the resources to be diligent
2. Defendants might lose evidence necessary to defend
themselves from old claims
The global rich are in a much better position to preserve
evidence than the global poor are to fabricate evidence
3. Old claims are fuelled more by cruelty than justice
Not these types of claims
4. If we ask people to rectify too much, they will rectify less
than if we made a smaller request
Psychological motivations dont make a moral difference
Questions