There are 2 seperate posts. Reply to each one seperately on the ssme document. 1

There are 2 seperate posts. Reply to each one seperately on the ssme document. 1-2 paragraphs each. write replies to the posts of two other students. Make sure to engage their arguments and not just repeat your own (in particular, if you think that they did not understand the readings or your interpretation of the readings is different, make sure to point this out) .Each reply will get 3 points if it engages the post to which it responds in a meaningful way and based on the readings. The purpose of the reply is to discuss the way the post understands or applies the reading. Suggestion: your task will be easier if you read through a number of the posts and choose the ones to which you have meaningful things to reply. Reading just two posts at random and responding to them might appear as an easier shortcut, but it may make it actually more difficult to write a reply. The best replies are the ones that encourage reflection, for example by saying things like (these are illustrations, not templates!):
I think that you got this particular part of the argument from the readings not fully accurately…
Your post made me rethink the way I understood the reading in that….
I agree with the way that you understand this piece of argument from the reading but I don’t think that it applies to the example you bring up…
I think that the two authors that you mention actually present different arguments….
Replies that engage the argument without circling back to the readings are expected to get 2 points.
Replies that are general and do not add anything meaningful are expected to receive 1 point (things like “I fully agree,” or, “I like what you wrote,” or, “this is exactly what I think.” Of course, each of these can be part of a good reply, but they cannot be the entire reply since they can apply equally to any post and do not demonstrate engagement with the argument).
post #1:
The readings for this week recognize that our responses to global poverty have thus far been unsuccessful and offer ideas of how we should be responding to global poverty more effectively. Peter Singer (1972) believes people in affluent countries must respond to poverty by giving as much as we can. “…if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (p. 231). He calls this the moderate version of the principle of preventing bad occurrences. He proposes this moderate version knowing that most would reject the strong version, which he actually prefers. The strong version asks people to give until they reduce themselves to the same level as the person to whom they are giving, thereby sacrificing “something of comparable moral significance” and not just sacrificing “something morally significant” (p. 241).
Analyzing Thomas Pogge’s work, Jorn Sonderholm (2012) explains that Pogge believes well-off citizens in developed countries have a duty to fight global poverty. This is due to developed countries actively causing poverty by “imposing a burdensome global order on the poor that greatly diminishes the poor’s earning potential and imposes unnecessary costs on them” (p. 368). Sonderholm claims Pogge is unique in his assessment of our duties to help the poor because he bases it on negative duties (not to harm other people) rather than positive duties (to offer assistance to worse-off people), purported by others such as Peter Singer. The drastic solution to this would be to stop participating in the global order, but this is not possible. Instead, Pogge says we should take compensating action in one of two forms: “One can work actively to protect the victims of injustice (e.g., through the transference of funds) or one can work for institutional reform of a type such that if this type of reform were replicated in other national/regional settings, enough would have been done in order to eradicate the harms perpetrated by the current global institutional order” (p. 374).
van der Vossen and Brennan (2018) differ greatly from Singer and Pogge because they take a positive-sum approach, rather than a zero-sum approach. They explain “A zero-sum game is an interaction in which one person can win only if, and only to the extent that, another loses” while “A positive-sum game, by contrast, involves interactions through which people can gain without those gains having to be offset by corresponding losses for others” (p. 5). For van der Vossen and Brennan, wealth redistribution is not the answer to alleviate global poverty. Instead, economic growth is the key, which requires “institutions that protect and enhance people’s economic productivity and innovation” (p. 3). Vital to this economic growth is the opening of borders. “It requires that rich countries, and the institutions they control, allow foreigners to make mutually beneficial, voluntary trades with their own citizens” (p. 6). It also requires the rich to change their views and recognize the world’s poor as the valid contributors and producers they are.
Of all three readings, I find van der Vossen’s and Brennan’s argument most convincing. In a way, it seems so simple. Why can’t the answer to alleviating global poverty be to elevate people struggling with poverty so they are no longer poor? Why do we need to redistribute everything…or anything? van der Vossen and Brennan center their view in humanitarianism and believe that we must recognize the value of people struggling with poverty. “We fail to do right by others, and especially the poor, when we don’t recognize their contributions, productive potential, and resourcefulness” (p. 6). This sentiment is similar to the philosophies we follow at my work. When someone experiencing homelessness comes to our shelter, we immediately meet their basic needs of food, water, clothing, etc., but we also offer support services like addiction recovery and education and work opportunities. These support services are meant to empower them and help them lift themselves from poverty. I see van der Vossen’s and Brennan’s idea as being similar, but on a larger scale. It gives agency back to people struggling in poverty. It sees them as more than passive subjects merely receiving gifts from people richer than them. Though I lean more toward their argument, I am less clear on whose responsibility it is to respond to global poverty and what they should do. But I can infer that they view it as everyone’s responsibility (by way of participation in a world economy with open borders for all), and that we should actively trade with everyone and support institutions that protect the economic rights for all.
References
Singer, P. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(3), 229-243.
Sonderholm, J. (2012). Thomas Pogge on Global Justice and World Poverty: A Review Essay. Analytic Philosophy, 53(1), 366-391.
van der Vossen, B., & Brennan, J. (2018). In Defense of Openness. Oxford University Press
post #2
Each of the three readings this week discuss the issue of global poverty and provide insights as to who should bear the responsibility of addressing it. Firstly, Singer (1972) contextualizes this issue through the lens of the famine in East Bengal (Pakistan) and posits that such crises are due to human decision, and criticizes the lack of human action taken (at the time) to address it. It is their belief that, “ifitisinourpowertopreventsomethingbad
from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it,” (Singer, 1972). Singer believes that we are all morally obligated to do as much as we can, up to the point of not causing ourselves harm; further, Singer believes that we must reshape our view of charity as such acts must be a duty (especially for those who are affluent) – and that anyone who fails to complete that duty should be condemned.
Pogge (via Sonderholm, 2012), in discussing the distinction between positive and negative duties, recognizes that it is more widely accepted that we hold negative duty than positive. This relates to the issue of global poverty as Pogge admits that there is a moral difference between causing poverty versus not preventing it, but he does not agree with the idea that affluent members of wealthy nations aren’t actively contributing to the existence of global poverty (if not actively causing it). As Pogge states, “We do, of course, have positive duties to rescue people from life-threatening poverty, but it can be misleading to focus on them when more stringent negative duties are also in play: duties not to expose people to life-threatening poverty and duties to shield them from harms for which we would be actively responsible,” (Sonderholm, 2012). In this vein, we hold both positive and negative duty to fight global poverty, and our (we the members of wealthy states) contribution to creating poverty must be recognized.
Lastly, van der Vossen & Brennan (2018) view poverty as a normal aspect of humanity – not that it is how life should be, but that poverty has always existed as the standard life experience throughout history. To these authors, the best way to fight global poverty is through development. “The key to solving world poverty is, probably, to figure out why some places became rich and then repeat or spread the causes of success,” (van der Vossen & Brennan, 2018). The focus of this development should be on growth within institutions and economic protections, and to avoid/limit zero or negative-sum games through rewarding and prioritizing productivity and prosperity.
Of the three, I find Pogge’s most interesting and compelling, particularly when he clearly states, “If not all, then at least most of the citizens of developed countries actively cooperate in designing and/or upholding the current global institutional system,” (Sonderholm, 2012).. I agree that the issue of global poverty should not fall on the shoulders of those directly experiencing it. Wealthy nations should hold the obligation of both recognizing the harms they create within systems of poverty, and take the leading role in fighting/dismantling them. It is important to recognize privilege and actively use it to create a more equitable world.
Sources
Singer, P. (1972). “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(3): 229–43.
Sonderholm, J. (2012). “Thomas Pogge on Global Justice and World Poverty: A Review Essay.” Analytic Philosophy 53(4): 366–91.
van der Vossen, B. & Brennan, J. (2018). “In Defense of Openness: Why Global Freedom Is the Humane Solution to Global Poverty”. Chapter 1. Oxford University Press.