World Hunger and Poverty Sen and ONeill Sen Property and Hunger Sen offers us a rightsbased approach to the issues of poverty and hunger The right that he directs our attention to is the right to property ID: 373528
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Philosophy 220" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Philosophy 220
World Hunger and Poverty:
Sen
and O’NeillSlide2
Sen, “
Property
and Hunger”
Sen
offers us a rights-based approach to the issues of poverty and hunger.
The right that he directs our attention to is the right to property.
To appreciate the significance of this right, he insists that we locate it in a general theory of rights which accounts for their moral significance and implications.Slide3
The Moral Importance of Rights
On
Sen’
s
account, the moral significance and import of a right can be accounted for in three ways.
The instrumental view
: rights don't matter on their own; only their consequences matter.
The constraint view
: rights matter on their own; consequences do not matter.
The goal view
: rights matter on their own; their consequences matter as well.Slide4
Two Conclusions
Elsewhere,
Sen has argued in favor of the goal view of rights, basing his argument on the intrinsic significance of basic human rights.Even without this argument,
Sen
insists that we should draw two conclusions from this account of the moral significance of rights.
We must distinguish between the intrinsic value of a right and the overall value of a right.
No moral assessment of a right can be independent of its likely consequences.Slide5
What About Property?
Though a right to property is often assumed to be intrinsically good,
Sen’
s
review of arguments justifying the right
to property reveals
that it is typically defended by the instrumental view (i.e., by
it’s
consequences).
While there may be many good consequences of property, there are clearly negative consequences as well, most importantly for our purposes, poverty and hunger.Slide6
Property, Poverty and Hunger
When we consider how property contributes to poverty and hunger, two features of property rights come to the fore.
Endowments
: a
person’
s
starting point; the property/wealth bequeathed to them.
Exchange entitlements
: the benefits through exchange procurable from the endowment.
From this point of view hunger and poverty are a result of a lack of endowments/entitlements to wealth/food.
Sen
uses a number of examples to show that availability of food can be, but not need be a factor
.Slide7
A Social Response
Given the unavoidable inequalities of endowment and resulting exchange entitlements, the only way to address poverty and hunger are through institutional (structural) reform.
Sen argues that we should increase the entitlements of deprived groups by:
increasing food production;
adjusting how food is distributed;
reducing entitlements of more prosperous groups. Slide8
Right not to be hungry
Obviously,
such a right only makes sense if the right to property is not absolute.
There’
s
no reason to assume that it is (other rights are not; we recognize a number of legitimate restrictions-zoning laws, eminent domain).
More importantly, an account of basic human needs provides strong support for the existence of a right to adequate resources to provide for
these needs.
Such an argument can be justified by any of the views of rights
we’
ve
considered.
Sen
uses the example of India to demonstrate that institutional structures assuming such a right are consistent with our other social goals.Slide9
O’Neill
,
“A Kantian Approach”
O’
Neill’s
starting point is
Kant’s
Humanity formulation of the categorical imperative.
As we discussed it, this formulation requires two things:
do not treat others as mere means;
do
treat others as ends in themselves.
As
O
’
Neill
insists, these requirements have clear implications for questions of hunger and poverty.Slide10
Justice and Beneficence
On
O’
Neill
’
s
account, the humanity formulation imposes obligations to justice and beneficence.
With regard to justice, the humanity formulation requires us to acknowledge that we cannot deceive or coerce people (remember
“
voluntary
informed
consent
”
)
.
With regard to beneficence, the key is the requirement to respect people as rational and autonomous beings. As Kant specifies it in his analysis of our duty to beneficence, this means we have an obligation to support the capacity of others to be ends in themselves
.Slide11
What does Justice require?
Clearly, people suffering from hunger and poverty are vulnerable in a number of ways to those more fortunate.
We benefit from the lack of development in other countries with cheap products that make our lives easier and more comfortable.
Kant
’
s
analysis of our obligation to justice provides the basis for a series of questions about our economic relations with such countries, and the advantages we
secure
from them.Slide12
What does Beneficence require?
Similar analyses are offered from the perspective of our obligation to beneficence.
While the imperfectness of the duty from
Kant
’
s
perspective limits the capacity to address any specific situation,
Kant
’
s
analysis clearly reveals our obligation to participate in economic relationships that are maximally respectful to the humanity of the parties involved.
Our goal should be to act in such a way as to encourage and develop the autonomy of less fortunate trading partners.Slide13
Kant vs. Utilitarianism
Kantian Moral Reasoning:
does not rank all possible institutional arrangements;
is in principle less
sensitive to issues concerning what will cause what.
Utilitarian Moral Reasoning:
requires ranking all possible courses of actions;
thus, requires much more causal knowledge than Kantian moral reasoning;
unlike Kantian reasoning, may allow or even require short-term neglect or abandonment
.