Article Analysis: Global Politics (Essay Sample)

Article Analysis: Global Politics Name Institutional Affiliations Course Number Course Instructor Date Article Analysis: Global Politics Introduction: Main Arguments In the essays titled "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" by Peter Singer and "“Assisting” the global poor" by Thomas W. Pogge, both authors explore the moral obligations of affluent individuals and developed nations to alleviate global poverty. Although they approach the issue from different perspectives, they share a common goal of addressing the ethical responsibilities that arise in the face of severe poverty. Peter Singer's main argument revolves around the idea that citizens of affluent countries, or even those who have the means to help, have a moral obligation to prevent and alleviate suffering in the world, particularly in cases of extreme poverty. Singer reflects on the death and suffering of the people of East Bangel due to famine and states that if only richer nations could assist these people, their levels of suffering would be reduced to very small proportions (Singer, 1972, p. 229). Singer contends that individuals should extend their moral circle to encompass those suffering from poverty and consider their interests as equally significant as those of people closer to them geographically (Singer, 1972, p. 232). Moreover, Singer emphasizes the principle of doing only what we can, which means that individuals should give away a significant portion of their resources, such as money, to prevent suffering and death from easily preventable causes, but only if they can (Singer, 1972, pp. 236-240). He contrasts this argument with Sidgwick-Urmson's argument that there should be a basic moral code for the aspects of duty or charity. Instead, he argues that Sidgwick-Urmson’s line of argument would not breed compliance because people do not have the same amount of resources (Singer, 1972, p. 237). If a basic moral code was instituted for everyone to give half of their profits to charity, say to help alleviate famine, then people with lower incomes would be disadvantaged and this may breed inequality. He argues that we ought not to limit our moral duties to the point where we only help when it imposes no significant sacrifice on us. He ties this argument to the fact that we often place more value on our personal luxuries than on saving the lives of people living in poor regions. Singer uses the example of a child drowning in a shallow pond to illustrate his point. He argues that it would be morally reprehensible not to save the child even if it means getting one’s clothes muddy (Singer, 1972, p. 231). Similarly, he believes that failing to help those suffering from extreme poverty, when we have the means to do so, is ethically wrong and akin to letting the child drown. In contrast, Thomas W. Pogge’s main arguments take a broader perspective in his article by discussing the systemic factors that perpetuate global poverty. Pogge focuses on the global institutional order and its impact on poverty in the developing world. He argues that the current global system, which allows developed countries to benefit from unfair trade practices like less competitive tariffs and resource privileges, exacerbates poverty in developing nations (Pogge, 2004, pp. 264-276). Pogge highlights the significance of the international rules that benefit developed nations while causing severe harm to developing countries. For example, he points to the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules that allow developed countries to maintain heavy protections of their markets, imposing significant economic disadvantages on developing nations (Pogge, 2004, pp. 264-265). Pogge further talks about international resource privileges, which give ownership rights of a country's natural resources to those in power, often without regard for the welfare of the larger population who are less powerful to control those resources. Furthermore, Pogge identifies the international borrowing privilege as a systemic issue that also burdens developing countries. He argues that these privileges make it easier for oppressive leaders to maintain power, burden democratic successor regimes with the debts of their corrupt predecessors, and incentivize coup attempts (Pogge, 2004, pp. 270-272). Overall, both Singer and Pogge underline the moral necessity to address global poverty and suffering. Singer places a strong emphasis on individual responsibility, urging affluent individuals to take action to address poverty and suffering, contextualizing famine in East Bangel. On the other hand, Pogge emphasizes the role of systemic global rules and the collective responsibility of developed nations to modify these rules to reduce global poverty. Differences between the Arguments Singer and Pogge, although addressing the need to address the global poverty issue from a moral perspective, show some differences in their arguments. They present distinct perspectives on global poverty, which can be translated to their differences in philosophical viewpoints and approaches to addressing this pressing issue. The main difference in their arguments is the subject scope of the moral obligations of addressing global poverty. Singer seems to propose effective altruism, emphasizing individual moral responsibilities and advocating for personal financial sacrifices to reduce global poverty (Singer, 1972, pp. 236-240). He contends that rich individuals have a moral obligation to prevent suffering and save lives by donating what they can afford from their incomes to charities aimed at alleviating global poverty. In his conspicuous statement, Singer states, "If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, then we ought, morally to do it" (Singer, 1972, p. 231). Essentially, Singer's approach centers on personal ethics and the idea that wealthier individuals have a duty to assist those less fortunate through charitable deeds like financial donations. Quite much to the contrary, Pogge's perspective focuses on the structural and systemic injustices in the global economic system and the role of institutions and governments in perpetuating poverty. He argues that severe global poverty is not solely to be blamed on the poor and developing nations, but is significantly influenced by global institutional factors (Pogge, 2004, p. 260). Pogge highlights the unfair global order, which he argues is designed to benefit the rich and developed countries at the expense of the poor developing nations. He explains that international rules that govern trade, resources and resource allocations, and debt, like those imposed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Pogge, 2004, p. 264) often harm the development of developing nations, contributing to their continued suffering and poverty. Pogge emphasizes the importance of addressing these systemic issues and restructuring global institutions to reduce poverty's impact on the world's most vulnerable. Therefore, the main differences between Singer's and Pogge's arguments lie in their respective scope or focus. Singer's approach centers on individual moral obligations and personal financial contributions to relieve poverty, while Pogge's perspective highlights structural injustices and systemic changes within the global order as essential for combating global poverty. While Singer calls for personal moral choices, Pogge calls for the need for broader reforms to tackle the root causes of global poverty. The Argument I Found Difficult to Understand The idea I found difficult to understand was the objection raised against Singer’s argument of utilitarianism in challenging the distinction between duty and charity. The objection is related to utilitarianism, which suggests that we all have a moral obligation to work full-time to increase overall happiness and reduce misery. In response to this objection, Singer acknowledges that his position does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that we should always work full-time to maximize happiness, especially when there are no bad occurrences that we can prevent without sacrificing something of equal moral importance. Singer's argument is that given the current conditions in many parts of the world where great suffering exists due to issues like famine or disasters, we do have a moral obligation to work full-time to relieve this suffering. He argues further that there may be mitigating circumstances, such as the risk of overwork making us less effective (Singer, 1972, p. 238). However, he insists that, after considering all such factors, the conclusion remains that we should prevent as much suffering as possible without sacrificing something else of equal moral importance. The difficulty in understanding this argument arises from the fact that there is a complex interplay between moral duty and practical limitations. On one hand, Singer's assertion that we should work full-time to alleviate suffering seems morally compelling. He emphasizes the urgent need to address immense suffering and challenges us to reconsider our standards of behavior. On the other hand, it is challenging to interpret how this moral duty translates into practical action. Singer does not provide a clear threshold for determining what constitutes "full-time" work in this context. Additionally, there is ambiguity in the definition of "something else of comparable moral importance" (Singer, 1972, p. 238). The paragraph raises the question of how individuals should balance their responsibilities in addressing suffering with their other commitments, including work, family, and personal well-being. In my interpretation of the argument, Singer highlights a crucial moral imperative: we must prioritize relieving significant suffering and adjust our lifestyles and actions accordingly. However, the practical application of this duty remains somewhat unclear, as it depends on individual circumstances and capacity. I...