Posts
Pogge makes several valuable points in Chapters 4-5 concerning dual standards of what is rights concerning economic poverty and nationalism. I was able to identify with Pogge's position, but there are several points which need to be made regarding his arguments.
These points all revolve around nationalism. Throughout the semester, we have examined authors claiming that the larger the group of people, the less cohesive a moral theory/unifying principle is in effect. This idea is applicable to nationalism, though regrettably so. The reason we have a contradictory sense of universal morality between nations and globally is that there isn't a cohesive bond at the global level (or, at least that bond isn't understood/felt by a majority of global citizens).
History shows us that humans have been slowly, yet surely, developing a recognition of group bonds on increasingly larger stages. Nationalism has only been a recent development in human history. Eventually, I think that our social progression will lead us to a state similar to what Pogge suggests. Currently, though, this isn't possible.
In order for Pogge's conception of universal morality, especially regarding poverty, to exist, I propose the following: A global government/order must be established and constituents of that government, which would consist of all humans (in theory), would have greater allegiance to the global govt./order than nations. Such an order would circumvent numerous problems the current system faces. For example, examine poverty in a country such as China. I believe that it would be difficult for some to justify assisting those citizens who are in a state of poverty that support the Communist regime. Not only that, but those same people may also conclude we are doing the job of the Chinese government--why are we doing this when poverty exists within our own country? Both these and many other objections could be stifled by the global govt./order proposal above. As Pogge mentions, the priority would then rest with helping those in greatest poverty (for the scenario above, I assume that there are more individuals in greater poverty located in China than the U.S.), though we would be obligated to help all we could.
I have a feeling there is much more to be said on this topic--I await class to write further blog posts on these chapters.
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
It is interesting that you say that "there isn't a cohesive bond at the global level..." Developed states have no problem with recognizing the concept of globalization, as the sharing of ideas and cultures (although viewed by some as mainly the export of Western ideas and culture, because of the power that Western states hold in shaping the global order), but at the same time, these same developed states refuse to recognize the export of those things which negatively affect the rest of the global community, such as the effect on the poor and the inequalities, which Pogge discusses.
ReplyDeleteAs far as nationalism being a "recent development in human history" I think you may be speaking from a more narrow definition of "nationalism" than Pogge is using. Pogge refers to nationalism in broad terms. Specifically, he defines his notion of 'nationalism' as "focusing on persons who have an ordinary patriotic commitment to their own country" (124). I don't believe that nationalism, in this light, is a recent development, because although I'm not a history buff, nationalism, I think, can be traced back to ancient Greece, if not even earlier.