Nationalism, Egalitarianism and Global Justice

Abstract

Global distributive justice requires that universal standards and values be recognized and respected to avoid moral relativism. Egalitarianism in domestic context demands equal treatment of all persons, whereas in global context, egalitarianism means equal treatment of all nations or peoples. Nationalist appeal quite often neglects universal values and standards in dealing with global justice. Although Rawls rejected global egalitarianism in his late works, the main idea developed by his A Theory of Justice is still important for global justice. The reason why just arrangements should benefit the least advantaged domestically is parallel to that why they should benefit the poorest nations in global justice. Equality of opportunities in global context means that equal respect and treatment of all people, and nationality and religious beliefs should not obstruct anyone from getting a job or position. One of the moral arguments for benefiting the least advantaged is luck egalitarianism, and the luck/choice distinction is used for explaining personal responsibility in social and economic differences. It is bad when one person is worse off than another through no fault or choice of her own. But it is unjust when someone does better than others only because of her social class or family background. And social institutions that discriminate against persons based on arbitrary traits like nationality, gender, origin of country or region, religious beliefs, etc., are a bad example of unjust distribution. Rawls’ difference principle does not make a distinction between two reasons that cause disadvantage. Therefore, the requirement to benefit the least advantaged should embody the luck/choice distinction; people should be responsible for the cost of their choice and not for their natural assets. This principle may be extended to global justice. For those who live in poverty because of their lack of natural resources and gifts, compensation should be made to let them lead a decent life, and to those who voluntarily choose their lifestyle that causes their disadvantage, the efforts to benefit them should be to their minimal satisfaction, as a humanitarian appeal. And some nations voluntarily choose their institutions, ways of life, including working style, ways of doing business, educational efforts and political corruption, which cause lower economic development and efficiency. Social and economic equality in such circumstances is not unconditional, and international assistance should consider the choice factor.