Comments on: Rawls’s Duty of Assistance

By: back40

back40 — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:08:01 +0000

The concept of material redistribution as a remedy for lack of development, poverty and misery is legalistic, sapless, “as cold as Presbyterian charity”. The basic error is the inversion of compassion to focus on the benefit of charity to the giver of aid rather than the receiver. The receiver is expected to be grateful and respectful of the magnanimity of the charitable donor, the donor feels virtuous for having made a small sacrifice to benefit strangers. The purpose of such charity is to conceal the social crimes the giver has committed that contribute to the poverty of the needy. The purpose of criticism of the US for giving a low percentage of GDP in aid is to conceal the much worse crimes committed by other developed countries, especially in Europe and Japan, of using subsidies and trade barriers to prevent development in other economies which threaten a much more complete and permanent redistribution of earning ability. Materialist analysis of society fails to account for human needs. Redistribution of material is not human, it is legalistic and cold. It fails to consider the social death of excluding large numbers of people from participation in society as productive and valued members who have a voice in, and influence over, their immediate environment of work and community. Social organizations that deny useful participation to large numbers of humans are inhuman, cold. They not only fail as economic systems, they fail as social systems. The reasons for both failures are the same. By excluding large numbers of humans from participation their contributions of mind as well as hands are lost to society. The whole idea of material distribution, of providing such wasted minds with minimum material needs but failing to provide for social needs, is broken. It isn’t aid that is needed, it is work. If we truly care about those who lack the means of self support then the just thing to do is to make changes in our economic and social systems that enable them to prosper from their own efforts. This not only raises their level of material well being, it raises their level of social well being. It is a resilient, sustainable and humanistic approach to poverty alleviation that recognizes the need for true suffrage – a piece of the franchise, participation, expression of opinion, assent, petition and prayer – the contributions of mind to society that raise the level of social as well as material well being. The liberal critique of socialism and social democracy is devastating in economic terms but fails to identify the more important failures in social values, ethics, morality and justice. Those who manage to ignore the liberal economic critique may still gain fuller comprehension of the defects of illiberal systems by considering the ethical and social critique. Human beings require and deserve opportunities for self expression that contribute to a sense of belonging and personal worth. They deserve more than a place at the table (or trough, or soup line), they deserve useful work that allows them to express their qualities and gain a measure of recognition and appreciation in society. These basic human needs are as important as food, air and water. It is foolish to organize society in ways that waste the abilities of humans, and cruel to deny them opportunities to satisfy their social needs.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:18:39 +0000

The way Rawls was explained to me, his political philosophy was all about being able to justify social arrangements to the worst off. So “it makes you better off than you would be otherwise” is a good explanation to a British proleterian (maximin), and “You can’t have an American lifestyle without joining American society” is a good reason to explain to a Frenchman why he can’t benefit from redistribution from another country (law of peoples). The point at which international obligations kick in is the point at which the justification “we can’t do this without erasing the difference between our countries which is something you value” becomes ridiculous.

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 03:44:52 +0000

I actually like Rawls’ standards for foriegn aid. I agree that it is intellectually inconsistent with his standards for domestic redistribution, but I would resolve the descrepency the opposite way of that suggest in the post, by applying his foriegn aid standards to domestic redistribution.

By: Shai

Shai — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:47:18 +0000

In response to Don Hardie re Singer and charity: see google "demandingness objection" Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy consequentialism Dale Jamieson, Singer and His Critics Brad Hooker reviews Singer and His Critics,in Mind111, 2002, pp. 122-26 Tim Mulgan, The Demands of Consequentialism (with sample chapter) Brad Hooker reviews Mulgan's Demands of Consequentialism, in Philosophy71, 2003, pp. 289-96 Brad Hooker, Ideal Code, Real World Samuel Scheffler ed., Consequentialism and its Critics Phillip Pettit ed., Consequentialism Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy etc. there are plenty of views either way (I've limited it to links within utilitarianism/consequentialism here)

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:20:15 +0000

Attacking Singer’s argument is too easy: it’s pretty obviously silly. But Rawls’ position, that we have some duty to help people in other countries in dire straits, is much closer to what the average person thinks. I don’t see why US military spending on behalf of other countries shouldn’t be counted. Why shouldn’t the money the US spent towards defending Western Europe, and the money that it spends now defending South Korea not count? Even the money the US spent on the Iraq war arguably counts, if you think the war is a good idea. And if you don’t think it’s a good idea, then how much of the aid spending by other countries really turns out to be a good idea? Not that I an adverse to the US spending more on foreign aid. It’s just that the fact that the US spends less on foreign aid then comparible countries is being taken out of its greater context: that the US does devote a lot of time and money to efforts whose effect is intended to improve the lot of other countries.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:06:51 +0000

Regardless, your Rwandan example doesn’t do much to rebut Peter Singer’s argument. Singer argues that individuals should give their money to organizations like Oxfam and UNICEF, and not directly to governments that are likely to misuse it. I actually took some care to state that the aid whcich propped up the racist Habyarimana regime in Rwanda came from donor states and NGOs- NGOs, Micha, being ‘organizations like Oxfam and UNICEF’. I really don’t think you will read Prunier (full title ‘The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide’) but you know, he’d tell you a damn sight more about the realities of relationships between the developed and underdeveloped world than Singer will. Even more germane is Alex de Waal’s book ‘Famine Crimes’, one of the main themes of which is that money from NGOs (including Oxfam and Unicef) is often given in ways that prolong and intensify political persecution and war. De Waal gets angriest about the Sudan, and Rwanda. Again, well worth reading, but I have to say I doubt that you will actually read it. Stick to Peter Singer instead. I mean, he knows so much about modern Africa, doesn’t he? Almost as much as I know about neurosurgery.

By: Shai

Shai — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:53:29 +0000

rawls info on the internet: here and here and here etc..

By: Dick Thompson

Dick Thompson — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:30:03 +0000

Kokomo, I agree that the after invasion situation was handled very badly, because the cabal that motivated the invasion (in my opinion) seriously misread the underlying mood and desires of the Iraqi people. Nevertheless, in the broadest sense what they were trying to do was to unburden those same Iraqi people. The vision (or mirage) that they offered was ultimately to raise the whole arab world from its medieval burden, as they saw it.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:18:41 +0000

Pg, Good comments. I’m aware of the utilitarian/difference principle distinction between Rawls and Singer. However, I’ve never really understood why Rawls believed that justice should apply differently to people based on their country of origin. If Rawls believed that justice necessitates maximizing the welfare of the least well-off, I don’t see why this same principle should cease to apply as we cross the border. BTW, if you’ve ever seen how Singer dresses, it seems entirely plausible that he’s giving until it hurts. I’d be embarrassed to go out looking like that, and I’m a slob. As I recall, the only point on which to “get” Singer for not giving enough to general charity is when he put his mother in a very nice care facility instead of using the money to feed starving Bangladeshis. From a Reason interview with Singer conducted by Ronald Bailey:

Singer’s proclamation about income has also come back to haunt him. To all appearances, he lives on far more than $30,000 a year. Aside from the Manhattan apartment-he asked me not to give the address or describe it as a condition of granting an interview-he and his wife Renata, to whom he has been married for some three decades, have a house in Princeton. The average salary of a full professor at Princeton runs around $100,000 per year; Singer also draws income from a trust fund that his father set up and from the sales of his books. He says he gives away 20 percent of his income to famine relief organizations, but he is certainly living on a sum far beyond $30,000. When asked about this, he forthrightly admitted that he was not living up to his own standards. He insisted that he was doing far more than most and hinted that he would increase his giving when everybody else started contributing similar amounts of their incomes.

http://reason.com/0012/rb.the.shtml

Micha, I think you’re also ignoring political action in favor of focusing entirely on individual action. You are correct. I have difficulty conceptualizing how political action can be a stronger moral imperative than individual action. In other words, if governments have a moral obligation to help feed starving children in third-world countries, a fortiori, individuals should have an equal or greater moral obligation. Besides, I don’t mind the disparity so much as the objective misery. People needn’t live to be 75 (average U.S. lifespan) but they ought to live to be at least 60. I hope this doesn’t make me sound like a heartless utilitarian, but if our goal is to reduce misery, shouldn’t we want to decrease the lifespans of miserable people rather than increase them? There is a better chance of altering more people’s outcomes, to a greater degree, if I devote my energy to political action. I highly doubt this is true, unless you are a politician or the director of some powerful interest group. As an individual voter, you are much more likely to save lives by donating to charity than you are by trying to influence the outcome of an election. When was the last time an important election came down to one vote?

By: pathos

pathos — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:17:28 +0000

I may have mis-stated several points about relative defense costs between U.S. and Japan. I had thought that U.S. paid for all of it. As for U.S. versus E.U., I agree with the above poster if you subtract out of E.U. aid the amount cost to 3rd world nations by agricultural subsidies, the amount of net aid is miniscule. What do they say about giving a man a fish versus teaching a man to fish? Europe is essentially stealing Africa’s fishing rod, and then giving it several fish instead. As for the other points, the relevant point is that when addressing “private aid” they only discussed amounts given through charities. When a U.S. corporation closes a plant in America and opens one in a third world country, isn’t that private aid as well? Or must aid only be in the form of cash and food, never in the form of jobs? I’d like to see an actual breakdown that included the value of jobs provided by foreign corporations in third world nations and the negative value of tariffs. I don’t know how the numbers would turn out, but I doubt America would look as bad.

By: PG

PG — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:13:47 +0000

Micha, I think you’re also ignoring political action in favor of focusing entirely on individual action. I give some money to charity, though since I’m dressing better than Singer, not to the point that it hurts. However, I’m also politically active and promote a U.S. foreign policy that will work to decrease the extreme disparities in international welfare. Besides, I don’t mind the disparity so much as the objective misery. People needn’t live to be 75 (average U.S. lifespan) but they ought to live to be at least 60. People needn’t get chemotherapy that has only 25% chance of curing their cancer, but they oughtn’t be dying of malaria for lack of a $5 vaccination. There is a better chance of altering more people’s outcomes, to a greater degree, if I devote my energy to political action. Institutional change means that we don’t have to play zero sum game, wherein I have to choose between going out tonight or feeding an Ethiopian child. The whole point of Rawls’s acceptance of inequality as long as it maximized the utility of the least well off is that it doesn’t have to be a zero sum game, that we all can be better off.

By: PG

PG — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:07:17 +0000

Micha, I think you’re conflating Rawls and Singer. Political philosophy 101 (‘cause that’s about as far as I got): Singer is a utilitarian. Utilitarianism was the dominant ethical theory in the 20th century until Rawls resurrected Kantianism with Theory of Justice. Rawls poked a big hole in utilitarianism with the crushing observation that it failed to respect the distinction between persons and recognize that humanity is not a mass of utility creation, but a mass of individuals. Singer says we have to give until it hurts, and then throw in a couple more bucks. Rawls says that domestically, any structure needs to be one that maximizes advantage to the least well off. This does support capitalism over communism; if one compares the situations of the poorest people in the Soviet Union with that of the poorest Americans, I think by most measures the Americans would have come out ahead. I would guess that Rawls thinks different rules apply across borders because different societies have different conceptions of what it means to be well-off. The distinctions between individuals, writ large, is the distinctions between societies. Americans maximize well-offness by having relatively low unemployment (despite June’s 6.4% rate) and low social benefits; many other countries maximize well-offness by having relatively high unemployment and high social benefits. We aren’t obligated to help the Swedes, and the Swedes aren’t obligated to help us, because we’re both democratic nations and thus presumably each satisfied with what we’re getting. I think Rawls probably was more about structural aid than short-term disaster shipments of grain, though. Certainly, lowering trade barriers would be a structural aid that would help many economies become less burdened; the U.S. spends more in farm subsidies than it does in humanitarian aid. Keep in mind that I’m talking out of my ass here, as it’s been a few years since I read any Rawls or Singer, and I never read much of them to begin with. But this is the semi-educated, nonphilosophy major’s understanding of them. BTW, if you’ve ever seen how Singer dresses, it seems entirely plausible that he’s giving until it hurts. I’d be embarrassed to go out looking like that, and I’m a slob. As I recall, the only point on which to “get” Singer for not giving enough to general charity is when he put his mother in a very nice care facility instead of using the money to feed starving Bangladeshis.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:39:55 +0000

m@butler, It is a mistake to conclude, just because real people in the real world don’t or can’t adhere fully to a moral theory, that the principle is invalid. I agree. My argument doesn’t disprove the contention that foreign aid is a moral obligation. Rather, it simply demonstrates, contrary to Tristero’s claims, that most people do not believe “extreme disparity in wellbeing is clearly unjust,” or at least most people don’t believe this enough to do anything about it. In other words, extreme disparity in international welfare may or may not be just, but it is certainly not the case that most people believe it is unjust, unless we assume that most people are consciously choosing to act in an unjust manner. I tend to not give much weight to arguments made by people who don’t live by the same principles they wish to persuade others to adopt. If you want to convince me to stop eating meat, you should become a vegetarian. If you wish to convince me that “extreme disparity in wellbeing is clearly unjust,” you should give all of your income above and beyond the absolute minimum threshold necessary to sustain yourself to international charities that feed starving children in third-world countries.

By: m@butler

m@butler — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:21:43 +0000

According to Hernando de Soto’s book “Mystery of Capital”, the US could do more for poor countries by simply helping/encouraging them to establish basic property rights and a good legal system that we could ever do by giving monetary aid. This is a version of the “cycle of dependency” argument used against welfare. The basic idea is that the most effective way to help people also happens, by happy coincidence, to be the cheapest. This is a seductive, almost-too-good-to-be-true notion, which does not make it wrong, but does make it suspect. It is true that waste and corruption are serious problems in foreign aid spending, although controls have improved in recent years. It is also true that some governments are simply not fit to receive aid, no matter how needy their people may be. However, political corruption alone is not responsible for the world’s poverty. The factors which allow a country to become self-sufficient are many and complex. They go far beyond “basic property rights and a good legal system”. And they cost money. de Soto may have many good suggestions about how money should be spent, what forms of aid offer the best ROI in terms of economic and human development. But if he claims that the problems of the underdeveloped wold can be solved for free – that they require only a pat on the shoulder and some legal advice – he’s peddling only wishful thinking.

By: aelph

aelph — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:11:11 +0000

It doesn’t seem that Rawls, Alterman or “David” are interested in development or justice so much as in advancing a political theory. I’m not going to speak to Alterman or “David” on this issue, but saying that Rawls is not “interested” in justice shows a great deal of ignorance about one of the most prominent thinkers on the the subject of the 20th century.