Liberal Critics of Global Justice (+ Peter Singer and Garrett Hardin)

Thomas Nagel

• Believes that justice is socioeconomic justice e.g. redistribution.

• Justice depends/ contingent on reciprocal ‘special relationships’ with political institutions - thus he is a statist.

• Relational obligations so he believes we have no global obligations of justice.

• No global state = no global justice.

Chandran Kukathas

• Believes that justice is not the primary concern, but the limitation of power.

• He believes that toleration is the central liberal value, not justice.

• Believes that toleration limits the abuse of power and helps set the limit of justice.

• He maintains a recognition of deep pluralism.

Richard Rorty

• He is anti-foundationalist and disagrees with the use of philosophy as an explanation of justice - philosophy as part of the problem.

• Believes that solidarity and sharing of sentimental stories are significant as it is more pragmatic and is context-sensitive.

• He believes that cosmopolitans come from a stand point of privilege - moral universalism is an invention of the rich.

• The claims of universal solidarity is cosmopolitan accounts are not really universal but partial and hypothetical.

Peter Singer

He is a universalist (so commonly a cosmopolitan and utilitarian also) who believes that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. He uses the thought experiment of a drowning child to highlight this.

However, this principle has been seen as radical as: it takes no account of distance and no account of whether I am alone in being able to help or one of millions.

He prioritises the global and supports a form of global egalitarianism.

Garrett Hardin

He believes in a particularist (local) perspective so is anti-cosmopolitan. Hardin’s thought experiment - Lifeboat Ethics, reflects that rich nations DO NOT have a moral obligation to help poor nations. The analogy reflects that:

• Rich counties = people in a lifeboat

• Poor counties = people swimming in the open ocean

• All lifeboats have limited capacity - if the capacity is exceeded then everyone drowns and there is a complete catastrophe.

• Admitting no gives at least some people a chance of survival. Helping the poor indiscriminately can lead to a collective disaster.

• Aims to avoid the tragedy of the commons (if everyone has unlimited access to a resource then its value is weakened).

• He argues that each country must take responsibility for its own well-being.

• His work remains highly controversial, as many argue that it is pessimistic and ethically harsh.