Equality and justice paragons meet

Paragons - Take Your Hand From My Neck (7")

Play "Equality and Justice" by "The Paragons" (Equality and Justice، The Paragons) - and other songs including "The Tide Is High", "The Tide We'll Meet Again. View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the Vinyl release of Equality And Justice on Discogs. Paragons. Take Your Hand From My Neck / Equality & Justice. Crab UK. This item is not for sale Paragons Sly & Robbie Meets Paragons (g) (LP).

Others, by contrast, argue that these concerns, when properly understood, point in the direction of equally strong duties to non-compatriots. One form of the argument that we have special duties to compatriots that are not shared with non-compatriots, draws on the coercive legal structure that applies within states and claims that such coercive structures do not apply outside of them R. MillerBlake Another highly influential version claims that there is a difference in the authority to enforce justice within and outside the state Nagel There are many important challenges to such positions.

One important line of argument maintains that coercion is indeed relevant in triggering duties of egalitarian justice, but since this is rampant at the global level it activates global not just national egalitarian duties Cohen and SabelAbizadeh In addition, some argue that the same ingredients Nagel identifies as crucial in generating state authority exist at the global level as well Cohen and Sabel See the entry on international distributive justice for more on these issues.

For comprehensive treatment of nationalism and cosmopolitanism see the entries on nationalism and on cosmopolitanismrespectively. In fact, for all their differences, both nationalists and cosmopolitans frequently agree that a good way to think about some of our duties to one another is via human rights. Human rights can and does therefore serve as an important discourse for furthering discussion about our global responsibilities.

Respecting human rights is an important requirement in much international law and can be a key criterion in evaluating whether governments are considered legitimate by the international community. See the comprehensive entry on human rights for more detail. Here I have space to discuss only two issues that have been prominent in debates about global justice. The first concerns the kinds of duties we have in relation to human rights. Against a conventional view widespread beforeHenry Shue argues that if rights to physical security are basic, so are rights to subsistence Shue A careful analysis of the duties associated with human rights indicates that the commonly held distinction between positive and negative duties cannot be maintained.

All rights have a range of both positive and negative duties associated with them. Thomas Pogge offers an enormously influential account of duties with respect to human rights. Our current global order perpetuates global poverty on a massive scale, but since feasible reforms to that order could avert this harm, our failure to make reforms not only implicates us in the misery but also in the violation of the rights of the poor.

For more treatment of issues, especially concerning what human rights are, which rights are rightly construed as human rights, and how human rights function in international law, see the entry human rights.

The just war framework has been influential in setting the terms of much debate about the proper use of force in international affairs. Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas offered some of the earliest accounts of the criteria that should be met for war to be justified. Two areas have been especially thoroughly studied 1 the conditions under which entry into the war is justified Jus Ad Bellum and 2 the conditions for fair conduct within the war Jus In Bello.

While having a just cause is standardly held to be a necessary condition for a war to be justified, it is not sufficient. Theorists often disagree about which additional conditions must be satisfied for a war to be characterized as a just war. The most common additional conditions proposed are that the war should be undertaken by a proper authority, with the right intentions, when the war would follow requirements of proportionality the ends to be secured would warrant going to waronly as a last resort, and when there are reasonable prospects of success.

Global Justice (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

On traditional accounts of just war theory all conditions must be met, but more contemporary theorists challenge whether they are all necessary MellowMoellendorf Once the fighting begins two central principles guide evaluation of whether the war is being conducted fairly: On the first, it is not legitimate to use force against civilians and, even though some collateral civilian damage may occur, it is wrong to deliberately target non-combatants.

On the second, combatants may only use the force necessary to achieve their ends -- the force used must be proportional to the ends that are to be secured in conducting the war. There are further requirements governing fairness, such as requirements to comply with international laws and treat prisoners fairly, but the two featured principles are the most commonly invoked in normative analyses of Jus In Bello.

The third part of just war theory Jus Post Bellum concerns how the war concludes and the transition back to a situation of peace. It deals with issues such as compensation, punishment, and reform. More recently a further component has been suggested especially in light of engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan in the yearsnamely, justice in exiting the war Jus Ex Bellowhich concerns when it is appropriate to end a war MoellendorfRodin There are many contemporary global justice issues concerning the appropriate use of force and its aftermath that currently command attention including: Is drone warfare permissible?

Can terrorism ever be justified? Is torture to contain major global threats permissible? Is the attempt to contain nuclear weapons development by those who have them already fraught with hypocrisy? How should we deal best with societies in a state of transitional justice? When are political apologies for historic injustice in warfare appropriate? Here we consider very briefly only two further issues that have widespread current interest in the global justice literature: Humanitarian Intervention and Terrorism.

See the entry on terrorism for an extended analysis of such questions. See the entry on war for a comprehensive overview of issues concerning justice in war. In recent years this issue has become salient as large-scale human rights violations and suffering unfolded in Rwanda, the Sudan, the former Yugoslavia, and Libya.

Against the traditional understanding that respecting state sovereignty requires non-interference, successful arguments were marshaled that there are important responsibilities to protect the vulnerable International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty Leaning heavily on the conventional conditions contained in the just war framework, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty argued that we may engage in war aimed at protecting those who suffer at the hands of governments unwilling or unable to stop large-scale human rights abuses.

One frequently voiced concern about humanitarian interventions is whether they are just another form of imperialism. How will interveners be held accountable for their actions? Taking such concerns seriously Allen Buchanan and Robert Keohane advocate for a series of innovative mechanisms of accountability, both before and after the proposed intervention takes place, to allay fears about abuse Buchanan and Keohane Is there a difference between state terrorism and that perpetrated by insurgent organizations?

Might terrorism be justified under certain circumstances? Some challenge that the targets are innocent. On this argument, citizens can be legitimate targets of violence. So when governments judge that some moral disaster is sufficiently likely, it can be repelled using unorthodox and otherwise repugnant means.

Global Economic Injustice Possibly the next most prominent global justice issue after considerations of proper use of force concerns the impact of, and responsibilities created by, globalization.

Globalization is a complex phenomenon with many facets. For our purposes we need note only some of its characteristic central features. While there is much debate about the long-term effects of globalization and whether they are on balance good or bad, at this stage, the effects of globalization have been mixed.

For some, globalization has brought improvements, while it has worsened the position of others Singer Philosophers have been concerned with answers to a range of questions such as: What kinds of economic arrangements are just? Should our international institutions be reformed to better reflect fair terms of co-operation in our globalized world? Can globalization be better managed so that it works to assist the global poor more effectively? Are protectionist policies in trade justified or, rather, is free trade required by considerations of justice?

Should poor working conditions in developing countries be a matter of concern for citizens and consumers in affluent, developed countries? If so, how might harmful employment conditions be effectively improved?

While Thomas Pogge argues that globalization has harmed the poor on a massive scale, Mathias Risse argues that this is not at all clear PoggeRisse Risse argues that in many ways the global order must be credited with benefiting the global poor as well. The World Trade Organization has been an important focal point for discussion about global economic justice.

pugliablog.info - Paragons - Equality & Justice (Matador)

There are also large disparities in the resources at the disposal of various parties such that weaker parties often suffer huge disadvantages in being able to negotiate agreements that work well for them. In these sorts of ways agents in developed countries such as governments, citizens or firms can take unfair advantage of those in developing countries R.

More generally, there are concerns related to the extraordinary power of multinationals and the undue influence they are able to exercise in negotiating deals favorable to them at the expense of the interests of the most vulnerable. So-called sweatshops in which workers typically labor under harsh and hazardous conditions are also a frequently raised example of how western consumers are implicated in far away suffering, given the high level of dependence in high-income countries on labor from low-income ones.

When we purchase products manufactured in sweatshops are we guilty of contributing to exploitation and if so, what ought we to do to mitigate these unfairnesses? Christian Barry and Sanjay Reddy offer an innovative proposal to incentivize improvements in labor standards and wage levels in poor developing countries Barry and Reddy In this domain philosophers have also examined a range of other issues including obligations to forgive odious debt Barry, Herman and Tomitova and whether micro-finance is to be welcomed as a positive force for the global poor Sorrell and Cabrera, Other more general concerns about exploitation and economic justice can be found at the entries on exploitation and economics and economic justice.

See also the entry on globalization. Global Gender Justice The effects of poverty do not fall equally on men and women, nor on boys and girls. In general, poverty makes the lives of women and girls harder than their male counterparts, as cultural expectations often dictate that women and girls do more care and domestic work or go without or much less when resources are scarce. Alison Jaggar prominently argues that various structures create and recreate transnational gendered vulnerabilities and she illustrates with practices common in domestic work and the sex industry Jaggar Cultural perceptions of gender roles can often lead to practices highly damaging to the most fundamental interests of women and girls.

Poverty can exacerbate such vulnerabilities so we have further reasons to address it as a matter of urgency Jaggar Martha Nussbaum has argued for a list of ten capabilities that all human persons, no matter what their gender, ought to be positioned to exercise. She argues that this approach offers a powerful tool for persuasion in cases where girls and women are denied these opportunities by local actors in different cultures.

Some important policy has been influential in international discourse concerning combating gender injustice. The Millennium Development Goals includes as a third goal the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.

Some feminist theorists are suspicious of human rights language and are inclined to reject what they perceive as a masculine discourse that trumpets individual autonomy in a way that fails to acknowledge adequately our fundamental human interdependence.

While there certainly is a place for discussion of these important themes, others argue that we should not lose sight of the important victories human rights have also been able to secure, despite still having a long way to go and other failings.

Immigration There are a large number of issues debated in the global justice literature concerning migration, whether temporary, permanent, legal or illegal.

Iceland isn't really a paragon of gender equality

Should states have the right to control their borders? Even if they have such a right, should states be more generous in admitting would-be migrants, especially considering the facts about global disparities in life prospects? When affluent developed states refuse to open their borders to the economically disadvantaged, is this equivalent to members of the aristocracy unjustly protecting their privilege as was the case in feudal times? What responsibilities are there to admit more refugees?

Can illegal immigration be justified under certain circumstances? What sorts of criteria may affluent developed countries use when selecting migrants from the pool of applicants for citizenship? May they legitimately consider how prospective migrants would fit in with current citizens, favoring certain religious, linguistic, or ethnic affiliations to manage compatibility?

When making migrant selection decisions, should they consider the effects on those who remain in countries of origin and if so, is this fair to the would-be migrants who would be excluded on grounds of the alleged negative impacts for home country citizens?

If states admit migrant workers, are there moral constraints on how they should be treated? Would admitting temporary workers without simultaneously allowing them a pathway to citizenship be unjust? What responsibilities do we have in relation to human trafficking?

Wellman offers comprehensive discussion of defensible admission criteria Wellman and Cole Whether brain drain issues should be salient for migration decisions has been the subject of recent discussion CarensObermanBrock and Blake For detailed coverage of issues concerning whether borders should be more or less open, what our obligations are to refugees or guest workers, and issues concerning the ethics of recruiting immigrants away from poor, developing countries, see the entry on immigration.

Global Environmental Issues Patterns of human behavior that destroy habitats, accelerate species extinction, exacerbate toxic levels of pollution, contribute to ozone layer destruction, or increase population levels are all issues of global environmental concern.

However, although there are many global environmental topics that are rightly concerns of global justice, there is one that dominates discussion and that concerns our responsibilities with respect to climate change. Here we focus exclusively on this issue.

Among the scientific community it is no longer controversial that anthropogenic climate change is real and a significant threat to the well-being of both current and future generations. But it is also widely acknowledged that human development is an important way to address high levels of global poverty, that such development is energy intensive, and the cheapest sources of energy available are not likely to be clean energy types.

These considerations significantly affect efforts to deal with problems presented by climate change. There is much discussion about the principles that should inform a fair treaty aimed at dealing with addressing climate change that also gives appropriate weight to concerns for human development.

Some of the main contenders include principles that recognize causal responsibility for high emission levels, principles that are sensitive to ability to pay, and ones according to which those who have benefited from emissions should now be expected to absorb more costs.

We have not all contributed equally to the problems created by emissions; industrialized nations have contributed historically at much higher levels than those that are still developing. And so we should endorse the guidelines that those who have polluted more should pay more to help redress current problems The Polluter Pays Principle. However critics argue that this principle unfairly holds some responsible when they did not know they were causing harm, since it was not widely known that greenhouse gases could result in climate change prior to So on this view, responsibility for emissions prior to should not conform with the Polluter Pays Principle, even if it is used to allocate costs after A second principle that is often discussed is The Beneficiary Pays Principle.

Those who live in industrialized countries have typically benefited greatly from high levels of emissions so it is not unfair if they are expected to pay a higher proportion of costs. Critics object that a history of benefiting is an insufficiently strong consideration for assigning responsibilities now: According to a third popular principle, The Ability to Pay Principle, the capacity of agents to pay for costs associated with mitigating climate change should be relevant.

Comprehensive treatment of climate justice requires addressing the issue of responsibilities to future generations. For important treatment of our responsibilities to other generations see the entry on intergenerational justice. Global Health Issues One striking feature of the state of global health is that there are large inequalities in health outcomes and opportunities for health.

Consider that life expectancy can vary a great deal. A person born in Sierra Leone can expect to live about 40 years whereas one born in Japan can expect to live for 80 years. Malaria has been almost entirely eradicated in high-income countries, but it still kills about a million people in developing countries United Nations A woman in the Niger has a 1 in 7 chance of dying in childbirth, whereas this is 1 in 11 for women in Canada Benatar and Brock The global burden of disease is by no means evenly spread nor does workforce capability correspond with areas of highest need.

In fact many of the countries that suffer from the greatest burdens of disease have the fewest skilled healthcare workers. In addition, pharmaceutical companies do not spend their research and development budgets in ways that match where the needs are greatest. Rather, seeking the most profitable ventures, they are much more likely to spend resources developing drugs for lucrative markets where the payoffs are greatest, even when the marginal benefits to consumers are small.

One example is the research and development resources pharmaceutical companies frequently spend on developing drugs that are similar to others already available, rather than developing treatments for diseases for which there are no cures.

The poor in developing countries are also often more vulnerable to disease and less able to resist disease because of poor living conditions related to poverty. Lack of clean water, clean energy sources, inadequate nutrition, and other social determinants of health play a key role in explaining this increased vulnerability. Living in overcrowded houses can facilitate the spread of infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis. As Norman Daniels argues, health inequalities among different social groups can be considered unjust when they result from unjust distribution in factors that are socially controllable that affect population health Daniels On this view many of the health inequalities that exist are ones that ought to be of concern as they meet this criterion.

Global Justice

How should responsibilities for improving this situation be allocated? In many ways, but here I pick out just a few that have received considerable attention in the philosophical literature. The current system of intellectual property rights is one troubling area. There are a number of innovative proposals aimed at addressing these issues. One prominent example is the Health Impact Fund proposal developed by Thomas Pogge, which offers alternative ways to reward pharmaceutical companies, notably by how much impact they have on actually curing diseases Pogge The greater their impact, the larger the share of the rewards they would receive from the Health Impact Fund.

Companies would compete for the gold star rankings which could significantly affect consumption choices and thereby expected profits. In both cases the aim is to create important incentives for key players to care about how their products affect the global poor.

There are many other issues that concern philosophers in the domain of global health. There are increasingly worrying practices of experimentation on disadvantaged subjects in developing countries. Increasingly, clinical research has been outsourced to poor, developing countries with populations that are often highly vulnerable.

We might wonder about whether these populations are being exploited and whether the participants have compromised abilities to consent to drug trials. In many cases the trials bring considerable health benefits that would not come their way were it not in the interests of pharmaceutical companies to do clinical research in those locations.

If sufficient benefits accrue for local populations some argue that these cases need not be of concern London New infectious diseases and the threat of pandemics are creating further questions about our responsibilities. Often the case is made that national interests in public health in developed countries mandate concern for infectious diseases that originate in developing countries. But more recently, this argument appears to have striking limitations.

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa in raises questions about what we ought to do to help the victims who, because of the ways in which the disease spreads, are unlikely to threaten large segments of the population in affluent developed countries outside of Africa.

The national interests of affluent developed countries do not easily converge with public health demands in developing ones in this case and yet we might still have important responsibilities to assist.

Some relevant questions include: Are national communities entitled to the resources they find on their territories? Should principles of global justice apply to our arrangements for justly distributing natural resources? Charles Beitz was an early proponent of a resource distribution principle, according to which natural resources should be allocated such that each society is able to provide adequately for its population Beitz We saw in Section 2 that Rawls believes that resources are not important to prosperity in the ways many imagine.

Rather, institutional resilience matters more. By contrast, Thomas Pogge highlights the ways in which international practices concerning the distribution of resources create considerable obstacles for prosperity in developing countries. In short, these practices create incentives for the wrong kinds of people to take power through illegitimate means and to focus on retaining power at the expense of other goals governments should have, such as trying to improve the well-being of their citizens.

We need to modify these international practices so they do not create such an unfavorable environment. In addition, Pogge proposes a Global Resources Dividend as one measure by which practices concerning natural resource distribution would work in some small way to the benefit of the global poor. On this Global Resources Dividend proposal there would be a small tax on resource extraction, payable by the consumers of resources, and available for projects that would assist in helping everyone to be able to meet their basic needs with dignity Pogge Leif Wenar is also concerned with prevailing practices governing the sale of natural resources and their products Wenar When consumers in wealthy states buy goods from developing countries, this is often similar to consciously receiving stolen goods.

Legitimate resource sales require general agreement from citizens. Evidence of agreement requires that: For various reasons including strategic ones Thomas Pogge and Leif Wenar do not directly challenge the right of nations to own resources on their territories. Policy recommendations, for instance, are much more likely to be effective if they can fit within the main structures of international conventions. The Global Fund would constitute a clearing house for payments and disbursements Steiner Appealing to accounts of ownership of resources, some philosophers draw out important implications for diverse global justice debates.

Mathias Risse argues that we all, collectively, own the resources of the earth and this has profound implications for a range of global justice issues, including immigration.

Some theorists concerned with environmental issues also discuss our rights with respect to natural resources. Tim Hayward, for instance, argues that we have equal rights to ecological space Hayward This is often appealed to when there is a perception that we have exceeded our share, such as in levels of carbon emissions and consumption more generally. Accounts according to which we have equal rights to resources, land, ecological space and so on, are often accused of suffering from an important common problem.

It is difficult to defend a clear and compelling account of the value of resources as these can vary considerably in different social, cultural and technological contexts.

But we need to be able to quantify resource values to some plausible extent, if we are to determine whether people are enjoying or exceeding their equal shares. Who should do what to reduce global injustices? Several different agents, groups, organizations and institutions could play a role.

Which responsibilities should devolve to corporations, governments, consumers, citizens, international organizations or social movements? Several guidelines that are often discussed include issues concerning the contribution agents have made to a problem, their patterns of benefit from the problem, and their capacity to take constructive action now.

Two influential frameworks deserve more extended treatment, notably that of Iris Marion Young concerning a social connection model for allocating responsibilities for structural injustice and that of David Miller concerning remedial responsibility YoungMiller In contrast to the idea of responsibility as involving finding fault and individual liability, Iris Marion Young develops a forward-looking model which she argues is more appropriate.

In some respects the last electoral term was golden for Icelandic women. The milestones were impressive: Yet for all their supposed advances in gender equality, Icelandic women are not that different from women elsewhere in the western hemisphere. They are still being slotted into gender-specific professions like nursing and teaching.

They struggle to navigate the demands of the labour market while still being largely responsible for home, hearth and children.

There was a reason for that boardroom law, after all. It is also hard to envisage the current government setting stringent measures to enforce the law. Last May Icelanders voted to bring back into power the conservative parties that brought Iceland to the brink of bankruptcy in Apart from any other implications, this appears to have constituted a significant setback for Icelandic women. Currently, of nine cabinet ministers, only three are female.

And gender stereotyping is alive and well. When it first took office, the government's economic affairs and trade committee was made up of nine men and not a single woman.

Meanwhile, the welfare committee was made up of eight women and one man. A token woman was subsequently added to the former, and a second man to the latter, but only after a flurry of criticism forced the male coalition leaders to make the change.

While those latest figures on women in postgraduate programmes seem encouraging, they are a little hard to interpret.