Abstract
AbstractThat there is a human right to subsistence is a basic assumption for most moral and political theorists interested in the problem of global poverty, but it is not one exempt from controversy. In this article, I examine four justifications for this right and suggest that it takes the form of a claim, that is, a right which creates correlative duties on others who are then taken to be the main agents in its fulfillment. I point to some criticisms made against this conceptualization and offer an alternative approach that emphasizes the key importance of the moral and political agency of the needy. Two aspects of this approach are that the needy are seen as actors in their own right when it comes to poverty alleviation measures and their demands are no longer seen as demands for mere subsistence but ultimately for putting an end to their political marginalization and exclusion. Towards the end, I point to the complementarity of both views.
Highlights
That there is a human right to subsistence is a basic assumption for most moral and political theorists interested in the problem of global poverty, but it is not one exempt from controversy
Translated into contemporary parlance, what Pufendorf envisaged was the recognition of the right to subsistence as a basic human right, the fulfillment of which ought to be protected and guaranteed by social institutions
I point to some criticisms made against this conceptualization and offer an alternative approach that emphasizes the key importance of the moral and political agency of the needy in the fulfillment of this right
Summary
“It is an easy matter to talk philosophically, whilst we do not ourselves feel the hardship any farther than in speculation,” once said by Samuel Pufendorf, criticizing legal scholars who, from their comfy armchairs, condemned the actions of those who in times of famine raided the granaries and helped themselves to the food 97), here, it is emphasized that human-rights (and, within them, the right to subsistence) are empowering for their holders Along these lines, one can recognize the “right of necessity” of individuals as their moral prerogative to take, use and/or occupy the material resources required to guarantee their self-preservation, even if this implies breaking the law While liberal theories of global justice have mostly ignored actions like shoplifting, pilfering, squatting, occupying, engaging in underground work, and illegally migrating, this approach starts from the fact that the needy of the world already engage in the fulfillment of their right to subsistence through these “non-conventional” methods.11 It asks under what conditions this is morally permissible: the need must be basic, one must not violate other important moral interests to exercise this right, and it must be done as a last resort. If one keeps in mind Deveaux's dictum that the fulfillment of this right has an undeniably political component, many actions that have so far fallen off the radar of the analysis will have to be taken into account in future discussions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
