Abstract
Extreme poverty is a painful and complex challenge, that plagues millions of people worldwide. It is important to evaluate our involvement in this catastrophe and navigate which duties can be assigned to us. This master thesis explores the moral dimensions of aiding the world's impoverished populations, whether in the form of emergency aid or state-supported interventions. I argue that compensatory duties towards the global poor is compatible with a libertarian framework. The analysis draws upon the perspectives of influential philosophers such as Thomas Pogge and Robert Nozick, with a reflection over Aksel Braanen Sterri and Ole Martin Moen's article "Ethics of Emergencies." (2021). The central inquiry of this thesis revolves around the question: How can one ethically justify offering aid to the global poor, whether as emergency relief or state-sponsored support?
The thesis is structured in four main chapters, where I predominantly unfold explanations of contrasting views, regarding aid and duties. The theories have been selected specifically to portray two different ditches of the political scheme, about alleviating global poverty. While Thomas Pogge argues for institutional reform through feasible designs and protection for the victims of an unjust order, Robert Nozick argues that social economic problems, such as poverty, should not be alleviated through governmental intervention. Sterri and Moen contributes with a substantial analysis of our duties in emergencies, that sparks my discussion of whether extreme poverty should be regarded as an emergency.
Modern philosophy’s contribution to the problem of global poverty, is probably best portrayed through Peter Singers arguments of positive duties to assist those who suffer, if we can do so with an expendable cost, to our own living. Singers’ argument puts heavy moral weight upon all even mediocre wealth people, and his assisting duties, as they are ideally, can be difficult to carry out. Thomas Pogge attempts to circumvent this problem, by building his theory on a minimal standard of negative duties not to harm. His argument is therefore heavily carried by the idea, that we are harming the global poor, by causing huge human rights deficits that foreseeably is reasonably avoidable through a feasible alternative institutional design. His examination of global justice and negative duties provides a different lens through which to consider our obligation to alleviate extreme poverty.
On the contrary, Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice in holdings emphasizes a just way to acquire holdings, that is followed by historical, unpatterned principles. He argues for individual rights to property and minimal state interference, raising questions about whether alleviation of the global poor ever justly can be done through a redistribution of resources and wealth. It is only through Nozicks rectification principle, that one sees a gateway, for a libertarian argument for the alleviation of the poor, supported by Pogge’s argument that we are harming the poor.
Aksel Braanen Sterri and Ole Martin Moen's article "Ethics of Emergencies" introduces the complexity of ethical decision-making in times of crisis, suggesting that certain actions, typically deemed unjust, may be justified in emergency situations. They argue that we, and explicitly philosophers, should be careful of using emergency cases to test our common normative principles, as emergency duties often are more demanding, than what we normally could require of each other. Their perspective contributes to the broader conversation on how grave our duties to the poor are, considering both immediate and long-term interventions.
By connecting Pogge's emphasis on global justice, Nozick's focus on individual rights, and Sterri and Moen's insights into the ethics of emergencies, this thesis offers a comprehensive analysis of the ethical foundations for providing, or not providing, aid to the world's impoverished populations. Ultimately, I seek to provide theoretical insights into the complex considerations involved in justifying assistance to those in need, shedding light on the interplay between moral obligations, individual rights, and emergent ethical paradigms.