For comprehensive treatment of nationalism and cosmopolitanism see the entries on nationalism and on cosmopolitanism , respectively. Discussion of global justice matters often invokes concern for human rights. 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 before , Henry 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. Within the field of global justice, issues concerning war have one of the longest histories. 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 war , only as a last resort, and when there are reasonable prospects of success.
On traditional accounts of just war theory all conditions must be met, but more contemporary theorists challenge whether they are all necessary Mellow , Moellendorf Once the fighting begins two central principles guide evaluation of whether the war is being conducted fairly: one which respects the distinction between combatants and noncombatants The Principle of Non-Combatant Immunity and another that governs what counts as the proportional use of force Proportionality. 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 years , namely, justice in exiting the war Jus Ex Bello , which concerns when it is appropriate to end a war Moellendorf , Rodin 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?
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. Under what conditions, if any, may we engage in military intervention aimed at stopping genocide? 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 What kinds of violence count as terrorism? 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. 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 Pogge , Risse 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.
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. Miller 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. 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. There are a large number of issues debated in the global justice literature concerning migration, whether temporary, permanent, legal or illegal. These include: 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 Carens , Oberman , Brock 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.
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: in many cases whether or not people benefit is largely outside of their control.
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. 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.
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.
Discussion of natural resources often figure prominently in several topics of global justice. 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: i owners must be informed about sales, ii owners must be able to express dissent freely should they have doubts about sales, and iii owners should be able to stop resource sales without fearing grave consequences such as violence and intimidation. 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. There are a number of global justice problems that require remedying, and this raises the issue of remedial responsibilities.
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 Young , Miller 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. She draws on the idea that participation via institutions sometimes produces injustice, so we have particular responsibilities to address injustice.
We share responsibility for remedying injustice but we may have different degrees and kinds of responsibility. She offers different parameters of reasoning that can help individuals and organizations decide what might make the most sense for them to do in efforts to remedy injustice, given that there are so many injustices, whereas time and resources are limited.
Using the case study of the global apparel industry she illustrates how the fact that we are positioned differently can entail varying but important responsibilities for all who participate in activities that sustain sweatshops. There are at least four parameters that agents can use in their reasoning:.
In summary, Young encourages us to think about how we can best take responsibility for reducing structural injustice by reflecting on these four parameters—different positions of power, privilege, interest and collective ability. David Miller offers a tremendously influential connection theory of responsibility that also discusses our remedial responsibilities.
There are six ways in which we can be connected to someone, P , who needs help and so be held remedially responsible for assisting. These connections give rise to six ways in which remedial responsibility can be identified.
In the global justice literature there are also important concerns about the distribution of responsibilities among collective and individual agents. Prominently, can we hold nations responsible for global injustices or remedying such injustices? This raises important questions about collective responsibility that are well treated elsewhere in this encyclopedia see the entry on collective responsibility. Is it possible to have global justice in the absence of a world state?
Hobbes argues that this is not possible since there is no global authority that can secure and enforce the requirements of justice. He presents the classic so-called realist case, which is highly influential in international politics, such that there is a state of nature in the international realm.
All states compete in pursuing their own advantage and since there is no global authority there can be no justice in international affairs. Others are more optimistic. Since we already have a high level of interaction among states, organizations and other agents, this has generated various norms and expectations about appropriate conduct which guide behavior in the international sphere Beitz Moreover, we have a strong interest in co-operation when this is necessary to deal practically with a range of problems that have global reach.
Global governance is concerned with how we manage interests affecting the residents of more than one state in the absence of a world state. There is already a high level of co-operation among a variety of networks, organizations and other groups of interested parties at the sub-state level, and this is powerfully influencing the redesign of best practice norms in particular domains Anne-Marie Slaughter Other change agents that can and have exercised considerable reform pressures include global social movements, such as the anti-sweatshop movement, the fair trade movement, and other ethical consumption movements.
Global activism has been an important source of incremental change. These simple examples show that much more is possible in the absence of a world state than realists acknowledge. For more on issues of world government, see the entry world government , which provides extended treatment of this issue. Philosophers are contributing in important ways to discussions of global justice policy issues. As illustrations, in this entry we have canvassed several institutional reform proposals for addressing global injustices which have enjoyed widespread attention, both within the academy and beyond.
There is also the innovative work of Leif Wenar concerning proposals for clean trade Section 9. In addition to those illustrations already highlighted in this article, philosophers are also having an impact on policy discussions in a wide range of areas including climate change, reforming the United Nations, and suggesting the new priorities that should replace the Millennium Development Goals which expire in Philosophers have also contributed to influential international multi-disciplinary projects that seek alternative ways to measure quality of life or poverty Nussbaum and Sen , Pogge One area recently drawing increased attention concerns tax and accounting matters.
Philosophers have discussed rampant abusive tax practices by corporations and wealthy individuals and how this deprives developing countries of much-needed income for human development in developing countries. There has also been discussion of global income taxes, carbon taxes, financial transaction taxes and Tobin Taxes Moellendorf , Caney b, Brock Philosophers continue to make an important contribution to policy debates and this is also likely to be an area in which considerable useful future work on global justice will concentrate. Global Justice First published Fri Mar 6, Some Definitional Issues 1.
Global Economic Injustice 5. Global Gender Justice 6. Immigration 7.www.newyorkdecompression.com/wp-content/from/investments-principles-of-portfolio-and-equity-analysis.php
Terrorism and counter-terrorism : ethics and liberal democracy / Seumas Miller - Details - Trove
Global Environmental Issues 8. Global Health Issues 9. In general, a theory of global justice aims to give us an account of what justice on a global scale consists in and this often includes discussion of the following components: identifying what should count as important problems of global justice positing solutions to each identified problem identifying who might have responsibilities in addressing the identified problem arguing for positions about what particular agents or collections of agents ought to do in connection with solving each problem and providing a normative view which grounds 1 — 4.
A problem is often considered to constitute a global justice problem when one or more of the following conditions obtain: Actions stemming from an agent, institution, practice, activity and so on that can be traced to one or more states negatively affects residents in another state. Institutions, practices, policies, activities and so on in one or more states could bring about a benefit or reduction in harm to those resident in another state. There are normative considerations that require agents in one state to take certain actions with respect to agents or entities in another.
Such actions might be mediated through institutions, policies, or norms. We cannot solve a problem that affects residents of one or more states without co-operation from other states. Principles to Guide Behavior in International and Global Matters What sorts of duties of justice, if any, exist among human beings who do not reside in the same country?
- Product information.
- Global Justice (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
- An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.?
- ‘The War on Terror’ Security and Expressive Freedom | SpringerLink;
- Any Minute.
- In Defense of Moral and Political Secularism?
He says: I believe that the causes of the wealth of a people and the forms it takes lie in their political culture and in the religious, philosophical, and moral traditions that support the basic structure of their political and social institutions, as well as in the industriousness and cooperative talents of its members … The crucial elements that make the difference are the political culture, the political virtues and civic society of the country Rawls , p. Some key questions are: What principles should govern interactions among peoples at the global level?
What are the causes of prosperity and are they traceable entirely to domestic factors or are international considerations relevant? What should count as the kind of prosperity or well-being that we are aiming to promote? What duties do we have to those peoples who do not yet have what they need for self-determination or prosperity?
If human rights serve an important role in world affairs, which rights should be on our list of those to endorse? What duties arise from such commitment? Can we properly hold nations to be entirely responsible for the well-being of their people and if so, in what kinds of conditions might this make sense? When we consider what we owe one another, do compatriots deserve special consideration?
I trace some of the influential positions that have shaped answers to these questions next. 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. Global Gender Justice The effects of poverty do not fall equally on men and women, nor on boys and girls.
Immigration There are a large number of issues debated in the global justice literature concerning migration, whether temporary, permanent, legal or illegal. 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. 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.
There are at least four parameters that agents can use in their reasoning: Power: we have different levels of influence and capacities to change processes. We should focus on those areas where we have greater capacities to change worrisome structural processes. This might mean focusing on a few key players who have both greater capacity to make changes themselves and to influence others. Privilege: some people have more privilege than others in relation to structures. So middle-class clothing consumers have more discretionary income, choice and ability to absorb costs—they can change their clothing purchasing practices more easily than those who earn minimum wage, have little discretionary income, and little ability to absorb further costs.
Interest: All who have an interest in changing oppressive structures have responsibilities in connection with remedying these. In a nuanced analysis she argues that they might have responsibilities in certain contexts, such as to speak out about the harsh conditions in which they work.
They must take some responsibility for resisting and challenging the structures. Without their participation the need for reforms may be rationalized away or reforms may not take the required form. These obligations may not always exist, especially when the costs of resistance would require extraordinary sacrifices. Collective ability: In some cases we already have collective organization capacities and resources that are well established. Sometimes it just makes good practical sense to draw on these.
So, for instance, sometimes student associations, faith-based organizations, unions, or stockholder groups already exercise significant power in being able to coordinate like-minded members who are willing to take certain actions. She encourages us to harness organizational resources where doing so would prove effective. The Contribution to Public Policy Philosophers are contributing in important ways to discussions of global justice policy issues.
Bibliography Abizadeh, A. Altman, A. Aquinas, T. Dyson ed. Banai, A. Monash Bioethics Review 29 3 May : 8. Journal of Evolution and Technology 21 2 December : 53— Book Review: Jerry A. Journal of Evolution and Technology 20 1 June : 61— Book review: Michael J. Monash Bioethics Review 26 3 July : 60— Cosmos 5 November : Alan Sandison and Robert Dingley.
Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 12 : — Opinion pieces, etc. International Policy Digest , 22 October The Free Will Free-for-All. Fanatics and Their Atrocities. Sam Harris misses his mark. A response to Cavanaugh. JET is the leading journal dealing with issues relating to emerging technologies and the human future.
In the past I have served on the editorial boards of Science Fiction Studies , the leading academic journal in its field, and the International Journal of Technoethics. I am currently a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Posthuman Studies. Ethics and Information Technology. European Journal of Political Theory. International Journal of Technoethics. Journal of Church and State. Journal of Consciousness Studies. Journal of Medical Ethics. Kemanusiaan: The Asian Journal of Humanities.
Monash Bioethics Review. Open Ethics Journal. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. Science Fiction Studies.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
Science, Religion and Culture. Technology in Society. Utopian Studies. I have also been a frequent contributor to The Conversation. Research and writing I aim to produce intellectually rigorous, philosophically informed analysis of the large moral, political, and cultural issues that currently trouble Western liberal democracies.
Among others, these include issues related to secularism, religious freedom, freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry, and the future of liberal theory and practice. They also include a raft of ethical and political questions surrounding the use of advanced and emerging technologies. To express this in another way, I aim to relate philosophy to public policy and current public concerns. Over more than two decades, I have pursued this aim through a mix of peer-reviewed academic scholarship and writing for more general educated audiences.
As of , I have become a prominent public philosopher in Australia and beyond. My ability to make informed contributions to debate on moral, political, and cultural issues is supported by my formal training in law, bioethics, and literary scholarship, and by my extensive experience in public service, public policy management, and professional legal practice. One strand of my research relates closely to my doctoral dissertation in philosophy, completed at Monash University, examining regulatory policy in respect of emerging genetic technologies.
The dissertation entitled Human Enhancement: The Challenge to Liberal Tolerance , was approved in , and I formally graduated in I continue to work in philosophical bioethics and in related areas of legal and political philosophy. Indeed, this has become one of my primary research interests. In his back-cover endorsement of this volume, A.
This contains new essays by high-profile atheists philosophers, creative writers, and others. This examines many misconceptions, as we see them, about atheism and atheists. Much of my current research revolves around questions and anxieties relating to emerging technology. With Dr. This deals with philosophical and scientific questions involving the prospect of machine intelligence.
It scrutinizes most major approaches to the nature and authority of morality, including theological approaches, moral relativism s , broadly Kantian approaches, various forms of moral naturalism, and approaches based on virtue ethics. This is a major contribution to current philosophical debates on the nature and value of philosophy itself. Contributors offer their diagnoses of the state of the discipline and invite reflection on how it might evolve from this point. This deals with issues at the intersection of moral philosophy and the science fiction literary genre.
The Tyranny of Opinion: Conformity and the Future of Liberalism , published by Bloomsbury Academic in October with a copyright date for marketing purposes. This book examines the phenomenon of social and political conformity from a standpoint in legal and political philosophy. Public and community service Prior to undertaking a Ph.
During the s, s and early years of the new century, I also established a profile as a professional writer, literary critic, and public intellectual. In addition to books and formal articles, I have written many shorter pieces, including op-ed contributions in a wide range of forums.
I contribute to the work of the Center for Inquiry and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies — organisations with which I am formally affiliated — and I am a Fellow of the latter organisation. I have been a speaker at many academic conferences and symposiums, and at major international conventions. The other inductees on that occasion were Carolyn Porco, A. From to inclusive, though I did not take an active part in the judging in , I served as a member of the jury for the annual Norma K.
Hemming Award, awarded for excellence in Australian speculative fiction that explores the themes of race, gender, sexuality, class, or disability. In , I also acted as the judge for the Moral Landscape Challenge, a competition established and funded by Sam Harris for the best essay challenging the central argument of his book The Moral Landscape. This prize, awarded by the Australasian Association of Philosophy, is for the best philosophical piece s published by a professional philosopher in the popular media during the previous calendar year.
In addition to my scholarly interests in philosophy and public policy, I am a professionally published author, and a well-known scholar and critic, in the field of science fiction and fantasy. My professionally published fiction includes a trilogy of original novels for the Terminator franchise, collectively entitled Terminator 2: The New John Connor Chronicles.
- The Complete Cooks Country TV Show Cookbook: Every Recipe, Every Ingredient Testing, Every Equipment Rating From All 7 Seasons.
- Donner, Wendy - Philosophy.
- Wendy Donner.
- Series by cover.
- Browse more videos.
- Stochastic Methods in Finance: Lectures given at the C.I.M.E.-E.M.S. Summer School held in Bressanone/Brixen, Italy, July 6-12, 2003.