This is a question of global distributive justice. It has been argued by some, that the disproportionately rich countries of the world do not really deserve their prosperity, because to some extent, their wealth has been accumulated due to factors, such as past colonialism, and practices, such as slavery and other forms of exploitation of the developing and under-developed countries by developed ones. Thus, it is claimed that rich individuals have a moral duty to share their wealth with poor individuals. More specifically, it has even been suggested that well-off individuals in prosperous countries should set aside 10% of their income to be redistributed to the poor in poorer areas of the globe. According to this argument, humanitarian foreign aid by state agents is important in redressing global inequality, but is inadequate alone. My question is intended to address the claim that there is a personal or individual moral duty which the rich of the world have to the poor. I am interested in whether one agrees or disagrees with this claim and why or why not.
Dear David:
It is a historical fact that different countries and world regions initiated the path to industrial revolution at different times. Decades ago, many people thought that industrialization (or "modernization") was essentially a Western phenomenon, and in the eyes of some analysts it even had a certain ethnocentric connotation.
Time has shown that all countries, though with varying degrees of speed and difficulty, are able to find their way to development, and some old colonies have become or are becoming global powers.
Nevertheless, the different starting times and modernization paces temporarily created large asymmetries, which actually led to colonialism and other forms of exploitation. I do not think that the prosperity achieved by the most developed countries has been mainly a product of the exploitation of other societies, but the early advantages obtained by the former contributed to some extent to increase their prosperity through the economic and political asymmetries.
Can we then talk about a "moral debt"? I think so. But international economic relations are rarely governed by moral standards. I doubt that such moral debt will be paid off someday.
What, if anything, do people from rich, developed countries owe to those who are poor from disadvantaged areas of the globe?
Think it is more pragmatic & productive for poor people / countries to be self-aware & self-determined to transform themselves rather than at the mercy of the moral duty from rich people / countries. Moreover, even though there is a "moral duty" from rich people / countries, the poor people / countries need to prudently examine their genuinity with an open eyes ensuring there is no string attached as there is no free lunch in the world.
As humans we owe our survival to others and we owe them our support. As a rich country it only seems like we struggle to survive. Yes we have homeless and starving people in the USA but most of this we could fix if we tried. We as a country do not try vary hard to help others.
If I were in charge we would do all in my power to fix the hunger and housing problems of the world. No one should go hungry or homeless and wars should have been a thing of the past.
As a child I always thought that the world would have to stop fighting as we became more educated. I was wrong but there is still hope. We have to fix the problems we can and hunger and clean water and shelter as well as education are all fixable problems.
I just worry that we in developed countries see ourselves as different and we are not.
George
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics