Thomas Pogge Research Articles

Violence, economic development, and knowledge production

The notion of economic violence has long been recognized in the work of Johan Galtung and others. The work of Thomas Pogge and the field of global justice have addressed the impact of economic disparities between the Global North and the Global South, and their impact on human well-being, and social and economic development more broadly. Patents, publication in scholarly journals, academic collaborations, access to academic journals, and so forth do not on their face seem to be closely tied to indicators of human well-being. However, disparities in knowledge production, including access to academic resources and publication venues, are tied directly or indirectly to infrastructure, food security, health and mortality rates, employment, and gender equity.

Rawls and the Global Original Position

Cosmopolitans including Charles Beitz, David Richards, Brian Barry, Thomas Pogge and Gillian Brock propose the device of an original global position to work out global principles of justice. However, John Rawls does not agree with this kind of proposal. In this paper, I add two key original contributions, which go beyond previous arguments by cosmopolitans and advance the current debates. First, to argue against Rawls’s objection to the global original position, I demonstrate the importance of the distinction between accepting a particular substantive principle and accepting the original position procedure. Second, in order to respond to cultural pluralism, I take a unique approach to show that the idea of the person as free and equal is a fundamental part of the global public culture by examining the most fundamental legal documents: the proto-constitutional documents in international law and the constitutions of the major states. I apply Samuel Huntington’s classification of civilisations to identify the major civilisations and their core states and show that the idea of the person as free and equal is implicit in the constitutions of most influential countries even though these countries are categorised in different civilisations.

The Moral Habitat

<i>The Moral Habitat</i>

A merely national ‘universal’ basic income and global justice

A merely national ‘universal’ basic income and global justice

Deparochializing global justice: against epistemic withdrawal, towards critical departure

ABSTRACT This article critiques the ‘withdrawal approach’ to deparochializing global justice and argues for an approach that views ‘departure’ from mainstream theorization as integral to truly critical engagement. It introduces Aakash Singh Rathore’s approach to deparochialization – purportedly founded on Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice – as an example of ‘withdrawal approach’ which advocates repudiation of the West-centric and ‘profession-oriented’ academic debate on global justice, and promotion of context-sensitive theories. I argue that Rathore’s ‘withdrawal approach’ springs from an inaccurate reading of Sen’s The Idea of Justice and hence overlooks the critical spirit of Sen’s engagement with the global heritage of ideas and 'critical departure’ from parochial theories. This article further explores three analytical forms of parochialism that dominant theories of global justice may suffer from: epistemic, conceptual and descriptive. Using the case of India’s superrich and their culpability in global poverty, I demonstrate the parochial construction of ‘duties’ in Thomas Pogge’s theory of global poverty. I argue that deparochializing global justice, involving critical engagement with existing theorization along conceptual and descriptive lines, can illuminate a new way forward in global justice research.

Defending Paine's Agrarian Justice and the "Ground-Rent"

Thomas Paine’s Agrarian Justice deserves more attention than it has received, for in it Paine provides a foundational case for a broad social welfare program that is absent in his better-known Rights of Man. In this paper, I explain Paine’s case in Agrarian Justice, and consider the objection that the main revenue source Paine proposes – the “ground-rent” – is insufficient to fund the social welfare program he proposes because in the production of value the contribution attributable to natural resources is insignificant. I argue that the ground-rent justifies levying a tax not just on the value of the natural resources used in the production of value, but on a portion of the value of the labor applied to those resources, and therefore can be a significant revenue source. Similar considerations apply to resource-based taxation schemes suggested by others, including Henry George, Thomas Pogge, and some modern “left-libertarians”.&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D;

Red in Tooth and Claw No More: Animal Rights and the Permissibility to Redesign Nature

Most non-human animals live in the wild and it is probable that suffering predominates in their lives due to natural events. Humans may at some point be able to engage in paradise engineering, or the modification of nature and animal organisms themselves, to improve the well-being of wild animals. We may, in other words, make nature ‘red in tooth and claw’ no more. We argue that this creates a tension between environmental ethics and animal ethics which is likely insurmountable. First, we argue that concern for the environment can be compatible with helping individual wild animals but should see redesigning nature as morally impermissible. Second, we argue that if we are concerned with animal well-being, we may reject that we have a duty to help wild animals even to the point of redesigning nature, but we must nevertheless concede that it is permissible to do so under certain circumstances. We show how this permissibility can be derived from three animal rights views: Tom Regan's, a novel account inspired by Thomas Pogge and a libertarian approach to animal rights.

COVID-19 magnifies the vulnerabilities: The Brazilian case

This paper discusses inequalities of the health system in Brazil and advocates that now, more than ever in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, the world needs to put in place a more collaborative and egalitarian way of financing health research and investments in public health systems. The role of the state and institutions in the design of public policies for the realization of social rights is debated in the face of the economic and political crisis. Here we draw upon Martha Fineman’s vulnerability theory and Thomas Pogge’s view on justice with regard to health.

On the Universal Power of Socioeconomic Rights: A Comparison Between Thomas Pogge and Rainer Forst

Introduction. This article investigates the universal power of socioeconomic rights assessing their theoretical conceptualization and practical implication. Methods. Taking theoretical and empirical research into account – at the level of public ethics and political theory – the article carries out a comparative analysis of the elements of global economic justice theory, moral universalism and institutional understanding of human rights of Thomas Pogge and the critical theory of political and social justice and the moral constructivist conception of human rights of Rainer Forst. Analysis. On the one hand, Pogge’s cosmopolitan approach underlines serious noncompliance of socioeconomic rights at the global level because of the unjust distribution of rights and duties enforced by the current global institutional order. In this vein, the protection of socioeconomic rights is conceived as a (moral) negative duty not to deprive people of secure access to a basic human rights object, and socioeconomic rights, by imposing upon them unjust coercive social institutions. On the other hand, Forst’s perspective maintains that each right needs to be constructed on the very basic moral right to reciprocal and general justification which is conceived as the most universal and basic claim of every human being. Results. Drawing on the above-mentioned outlooks on socioeconomic rights, the universal power of socioeconomic rights is assessed in light of the satisfaction of universal basic needs, whose object is also the object of socioeconomic rights – a ‘conditio sine qua non’ for a worthwhile life – and the justification of the assigned duties at the global level.

Testing the Motivational Strength of Positive and Negative Duty Arguments Regarding Global Poverty

Two main types of philosophical arguments have been given in support of the claim that the citizens of affluent societies have stringent moral duties to aid the global poor: “positive duty” arguments based on the notion of beneficence and “negative duty” arguments based on noninterference. Peter Singer’s positive duty argument (Singer 1972) and Thomas Pogge’s negative duty argument (Pogge 2002) are among the most prominent examples. Philosophers have made speculative claims about the relative effectiveness of these arguments in promoting attitudes and behaviors that could lead to the alleviation of poverty. In this article we present the results of two empirical studies that evaluate these claims, and suggest that both arguments have a modest effect on people’s attitudes and behaviors regarding global poverty. In a replication of the second study, the negative duty argument, in particular, had a statistically significant effect on donations. We discuss the theoretical and practical significance of these results and suggest directions for further research on the role that philosophical arguments can play in engendering concern and action on pressing moral problems.

Global justice theory as alternative to the Rawlsian theory of justice in contexts of multiple domination

No contexto multifacetado atual, há atores que se beneficiam do design estrutural mundial ao mesmo passo em que a diversos outros são impostas barreiras que dificultam o acesso às riquezas - as quais, defende-se, em havendo uma arquitetura distribucional global voltada à equidade, poderiam ser melhor alocadas, de maneira a beneficiar um maior número de indivíduos. Nesse passo, o presente artigo, utilizando-se, principalmente, de método de pesquisa bibliográfico, possui o objetivo de demonstrar que a visão rawlsiana, ainda que cabível em sociedades herméticas, é inadequada para um mundo submerso em desigualdades econômicas altamente maculadas pela forma de acumulação histórica, predatória e usurpadora, imposta pelos países mais desenvolvidos economicamente em relação aos pobres globais. Assim, busca demonstrar, por uma análise de conjunto e com referência na teoria de justiça global consoante avançada por Thomas Pogge, a maneira pela qual a estruturação global ainda hoje prejudica, seletivamente - i.e., principalmente por meio dos privilégios internacionais sobre recursos e sobre empréstimos -, países, mantendo-os - ou, mais frequentemente, suas populações - em condição de pobreza.

Fortress World: Refugee Protection during (and after) the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the fragility of the international refugee protection system. It turns out that on account of public health concerns, many high-income countries, Canada included, are quick to abandon their legal duties with respect to the right of asylum and non-refoulement, as well as their commitment to responsibility sharing in the context of refugee resettlement. This has led to an immobility crisis among asylum seekers and refugees, exacting a heavy toll on this already-marginalized group.This paper explores such impact of COVID-19 related travel restrictions on international refugee protection. It begins by providing a bird’s-eye view of the global situation before zeroing on the Canadian context. It shows that as the global demand for asylum persists, travel restrictions either trap asylum seekers and refugees in precarious circumstances or force them to attempt more dangerous routes to arrive at intended destinations. Leaning on international law as well as Thomas Pogge’s theory of global justice, this paper argues that affluent countries have a duty to ameliorate these harms perpetrated against one of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Institutional Responsibility for Mass Atrocity Crimes with Thomas Pogge

Institutional Responsibility for Mass Atrocity Crimes with Thomas Pogge

POGGE’S ACCOUNT OF GLOBAL POVERTY AND RESPONSES FROM ELEMENTARY TEACHERS

It is the overriding objective of international organizations and some intellectuals to provide practical ways in solving the issue of global poverty. From a philosophical reading towards a qualitative design, this paper aims to answer the question of obligation among affluent countries and its people for the eradication of worldwide poverty as posed by some moral and political theorists. The research hinges on the guide and approach of Thomas Pogge’s account of Global Poverty. Then, using the descriptive method, the paper bridges the gap of a global issue to the fringes of local perspectives as it affects education and knowledge-production. Elementary teachers served as the participants of the study to gather responses concerning global perspectives on the issue. The following themes reflect the teachers’ responses: 1) prevalence of inequalities, 2) socioeconomic gain from discriminatory advantage, 3) creation of social problems, 4) quality of living as indication of progress, and 5) ‘we are in the same world’.

The Moral Argument for Migration

This inquiry hopes to develop the moral argument for migration rights. It begins with the historical context of world poverty, that is, the unequitable distribution of global resources which is rooted in the economic as well as the structural injustices in the world. While weak internal structures are a determinant in the lack of human development in the Third World, political exclusion and economic domination are actually to be blamed for extreme poverty. The theoretical attempt to solve this problem through Rawls and the Capability Approach is also examined. Gaps are present. It is noted that Thomas Pogge’s argument for a global difference principle is inadequate. The study distinguishes between economic migrants and refugees. The first should be dealt with from an economic point of view and the latter from a political vantage point. It is argued that economic and moral justifications exist in order to accommodate both. Migrant workers contribute to the economies of developed countries. Refugees, in contrast, may be allowed entry as a matter of negative duty to protect them from violence. The fear of the citizens of host countries that migrants are a security concern may be due to the unfair bias against people who are considered as outsiders. Justice, however, is a matter of fair treatment that all human beings deserve.

Collective Responsibility for Severe Poverty

Thomas Pogge has argued powerfully for the view that states which are responsible for severe poverty collectively share this responsibility. I will argue that this rough equality of collective responsibility is not compelling. Relevant states may share collective responsibility for severe poverty, but some states possess much more responsibility than others. It may prove difficulty determining precisely how much more or less responsible some states are than others. Nonetheless, Pogge’s account should be revised to recognize more clearly the inequality of contribution that relevant states have towards collective responsibility for severe poverty.

Declaring the Global Economy a Status Confessionis?

This article revisits theologian Ulrich Duchrow’s three-decade-old use of the Protestant notion of status confessionis to denounce the capitalist global economy. Scholars quickly dismissed Duchrow’s argument; however, philosopher Thomas Pogge has developed a remarkable “negative duty”—based critique of the current global economic order that might help revitalize Duchrow’s position. The article argues that sound reasons exist for the churches to declare the contemporary world economy a—provisionally termed—status confessionis minor. After explaining the inadequacy of Duchrow’s original position and summarizing Pogge’s account, the article develops a twofold argument. First, Pogge’s in-depth inquiry into the world economy gives Duchrow’s call for a status confessionis a strong yet narrowing economic foundation. Second, to declare the world economy a status confessionis minor is theological-ethically justifiable if the limited though indispensable “prophetic” significance of doing so is acknowledged. Thus, Duchrow’s approach is justified, but only partially.

A Second Honeymoon: Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics

Abstract In “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce,” Mark Sagoff (2001) asserts that “environmentalists cannot be animal liberationists. Animal liberationists cannot be environmentalists” (p. 42). In this article, I explore and refute this claim. As a result of structuring his argument around the work of Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold, I argue Sagoff too quickly dismisses rights-based approaches to animal liberation. Drawing on Thomas Pogge’s (2008) institutional framework for human rights, I present a rights-based foundation upon which animal liberationism and environmentalism can be based compatibly.

Labour Commodification and Global Justice

Abstract In this article, I maintain that the social process of labour commodification, through which the individual capability to uphold a decent welfare is bound to participation in the labour market, poses a problem of justice from the republican prospective on freedom as non-domination. I first discuss the reasons we might hold that capitalism brings a form of systemic domination by virtue of one of its intrinsic features: unequal access to the means of production. Then, I argue for a minimum de-commodification of labour power as a criterion of justice, adding that it should be conceived as a cosmopolitan proviso because states unfairly suffer from their limited economic capacity to neutralize capitalist systemic domination. Lastly, I compare the normative account of global justice that I am proposing in this article with sufficientarianism, with the capability approach, and with Thomas Pogge's 'Global Resources Dividend'

Institutional Failures in the Rise of #MeToo: The Perpetuation of Epistemic and Other Harms to Survivors in Academic Contexts

Institutional Failures in the Rise of #MeToo:The Perpetuation of Epistemic and Other Harms to Survivors in Academic Contexts Heather Stewart (bio) On a beautiful May afternoon in 2017, I zipped up my oversized commencement gown, struggled in the mirror to get my cap on straight, and proudly set out for what I was sure would be a memorable afternoon in both my personal and professional lives. On that day, I was set to receive my masters' degree in philosophy—a degree I had fought hard to complete over the course of a tumultuous year riddled with a number of difficult and emotionally draining experiences, both on and off campus. I was even more excited—and proud—because I would be "hooded" (a symbolic gesture in the academic world that signals personal and scholarly achievement) by my advisor, a prominent feminist philosopher whom I felt immensely honored to have studied under and who had offered more support in my journey than she could ever know. As the day unfolded, however, I realized that it would indeed be memorable but not for the reasons I had expected. A bit of context is necessary to explain how things took a negative turn that day. First and foremost, I am a survivor of sexual assault who lives and works with the ongoing consequences (emotional, psychological, interpersonal, and physical) of that trauma daily. This essay is the first venue in which I have said that publically, though in light of the #MeToo movement, I find it incredibly important for me to do so as a method of partial and limited healing, as a solidaric act with other victims/survivors, and as an overtly political act aimed at demanding institutional accountability for the ongoing pervasiveness of sexual harassment and assault and the enduring harms that so often arise in their aftermath. To the extent that it is possible and safe to come forward and make ourselves visible, we gain collective voice (and ultimately collective power) by doing so. By using our respective voices and varied social positions to demand justice and accountability in our institutions, places of work, and broader social and political worlds, we stand in support of those who for various reasons are made to remain silent. In addition to my status as a survivor, it is also relevant that I am an underrepresented person (on multiple counts) in my discipline of philosophy. Demographic data released in 2017 by the American Philosophical [End Page 215] Association (APA), the main professional organization, shows that only 687 of 2,730 members (or 25.2%) identified themselves as "female."1 A 2011 letter submitted by the APA's Committee on the Status of Women, which tracked women employed in the discipline at that time, found that of the near 23,000 full- and part-time philosophy instructors, only 4,758 (20.7%) were women.2 While these statistics are depressing in themselves, I would be remiss not to acknowledge that things are significantly worse for my colleagues who are women of color and who constitute only a shockingly small fraction of the overall women in the field. In an interview for The New York Times, the now President of the Eastern Division of the APA, Anita L. Allen, told fellow philosopher George Yancy that of "the APA's estimated 10,000 PhD-trained philosophers in the United States," only "38 are black women."3 No, that is not a typo.4 I would go on to mention the vast underrepresentation of LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities (visible and/or invisible), and first-generation university students too, but the lack of data (that is, the profession's lack of concern to keep track of these statistics) speaks to our/their relative invisibility within the profession. A third and final depressing point of note is that my discipline has an ongoing issue with harassment, assault, and other gender-based wrongs.5 In recent years, several high profile professional philosophers (for example Thomas Pogge, Peter Ludlow, Colin McGinn, and John R. Searle) have been accused of one or more such instances of wrongdoing.6 Indeed, the institution from which I was receiving my degree was not immune to these...