REVIEW OF THE BOOK, ONE WORLD: THE ETHICS OF GLOBALISATION. Peter Singer
Introduction
` The world has often been described as
a global village.[1]
This is due mainly to the explosion in technological advancement and
international trade as could been seen in the very dynamic and versatile internet
services, in the unceasing movements of airplanes, conveying both man and
goods, in the timeless communication that occurs via channels of
telecommunication, and in the great number of buying and selling that goes on
in the world.[2]
Indeed, our world has become a global village, a village where the happenings
in one part of the world are immediately known by people all over the world.
Today, crisis situations affecting one part of the world often have ripple
effects on other parts of the world. The whole idea of the world being a global
village has led to the formation of various international organisations to
ensure the promotion of the wellbeing and the defence of every nation in the political
and business activities going on among and between nations of the world.
Underlying the operations of these international bodies is the enthronement of ethical
conducts in international politics, business and indeed in all aspects of relations
between and among nations. Many political and social philosophers have lent
their voices on this issue, namely, the promotion of a global village that is
ethical, a global village that is not just industrialised and developed, but
one that is capable of distinguishing between good and bad, right and wrong,
and one that chooses the good and refrains from the bad, one that promotes all
that is right and eschew the wrong. The Australian Philosopher, Peter Singer,
has also contributed immensely to the discussion of globalisation and ethics.
This paper is a review of his book, One
World: The Ethics of Globalisation. This paper shall take this structure:
Conceptual clarifications, Peter Singer and Ethics of Globalisation,
Evaluation, and Conclusion.
Clarification of Concepts
Ethics:
Ethics can be defined as the branch of philosophy that deals with how we ought
to live, with the idea of the Good, and with concepts such as “right” and
“wrong.”[3]
Ethics specifies how individuals should relate to one another, both at the
family, community, national and international levels. It tells us which actions
to promote and which to abhor. Ethics promotes the acquisition of virtues,
permanent dispositions to act and think rightly, and to eschew all wrong
thoughts and actions.[4]
Globalisation:
Globalisation is essentially understood to mean the process of international
integration arising from the interchange of world views,
products, ideas and other aspects of culture.[5]
The International Monetary Fund (IMF)
identified four basic aspects of globalization, namely, trade and transactions, capital and investment
movements, migration and movement of people, and the
dissemination of knowledge.[6]
Furthermore, Anthony Giddens defines Globalization as “the
intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in
such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away
and vice versa.”[7] We
can gather from the above definitions that Globalisation refers essentially to those
processes of change which underpin a
transformation in the worldwide organization of human affairs by linking together
and expanding human activities across regions and continents.[8]
Peter Singer and Ethics
of Globalisation
In his One
World: The Ethics of Globalisation, Peter Singer highlighted two
occurrences in the world that have affected and still affect the way
individuals and nations view themselves. The first of them is the bombing of
the World Trade Center in the United States of America on the 11th
of September, 2001. The second is the emission of carbon dioxide from the
exhausts of gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles.[9] The
first is a single, dramatic event that claimed many lives; the second is a
series of small events that will over time claim many more lives. Both
occurrences, for Singer, are indicators of the extent to which our world has
become a global village, to the extent that happenings in one part of the world
affect other parts of the world also. Both suggest an urgent need for a global
ethics that will reflect the fact that we live, as Singer says, in one world.
Peter Singer,
amongst other things, outlined four major issues affecting the world today from
a global ethical viewpoint. These four issues go to make up the core of his
work, and these shall serve as the structure of our review of his work. The
four issues are: (1) The impact of human activity on our atmosphere, (2) International
trade regulations, with special emphasis on the role of the World Trade
Organization, (3) The idea of national sovereignty, and (4) The distribution of
aid. These issues all center on the question of the morality of globalization. Singer
would seem to ask questions like the following: who should be responsible for
slowing global warming? Is globalization
good for the poor? What do I owe to poor people outside my country? We shall provide
a review of Singer’s take on these four issues of global ethics in subsequent
paragraphs of this work.
Climate change: Peter
Singer argues that the manufacture and use of more advanced vehicles contribute
immensely to climate changes that affect life and property in poor countries,
in the sense that it leads to the emission of the poisonous carbon dioxide. Some
of the effects of this emission include the failing of crops, the rising of sea
level, and the spread of tropical diseases.[10]
These effects, argues Peter Singer, are evidently absent in richer and more
developed countries. Singer would contend that certain countries and people
contribute far more pollution than others, while the consequences are also not
evenly distributed.[11]
The pollution more often results in greater economic benefits to the polluter,
benefits accruing from the production of motor vehicles, while the polluted
countries are usually at the receiving end. Peter Singer would however proffer
a solution to the problem of global emissions by emphasizing the promotion of
fairness. For him, this is the only means to bring about a change to the way
things are at present. Fairness is achieved by a just distribution of the
burdens accruing from the production and usage of vehicles. Each country is
assigned a tradable entitlement to emit greenhouse gases at a level proportionate
to its population.[12]
This, Singer reasons, would create a situation where both the rich and the poor
countries of the world would contribute to the survival and maintenance of the
environment.[13]
Failure to promote the above proffered solution, Peter
Singer thinks, would result to the doom of the world, with, of course, the
poorer nations suffering more. To avoid such a situation, Singer suggests that the
UN should impose sanctions on countries that do not play their part in
protecting the environment.[14]
Singer would also criticise
America as being one of the countries that have failed in this regard, noting
that the attitude of America and Americans to have little or no regard for the
condition of peoples and countries other than themselves is at best immoral.[15]
International Trade Regulations: Trade between and among
nations is a visible aspect of the globalization drive of the world. Crops grown
and harvested in Africa are consumed in their large numbers in America. Fertilisers
and other farming instrument are designed and produced in the western world,
but they are exported to Africa. Crude Oil is extracted from some countries of
the world and exported to some other countries for refining and sales.[16]
Nations, employing the economic principle of comparative advantage, depend on one
another for sustenance and growth. In the sphere of international trade and
financing, no nation is said to have it all, every nation depends on some other
nations for goods and services that they do not possess, and for goods and
services they would enjoy more cost efficiency if imported. All these go to
show that no nation is an island. Thus, we see a system of mutual interdependence
and cooperation among nations of the world. The body responsible for trading
among nations of the world is the World Trade Organisation.
Peter Singer however finds the World Trade Organisation guilty on
some moral grounds.[17]
He accuses her of (1) Placing economic considerations ahead of concerns for the
environment, animal welfare, and even human rights, by its ruling that
countries cannot discriminate against products from other countries because of
the process by which they were made, even if the process itself is in some way
harmful (2) Eroding national sovereignty, by its actions of not respecting and
upholding the integrity of each nation, be it big or small (3) Being
undemocratic, in that her affairs and activities are not usually guided by the
principles of democracy, but one where a few countries seem to be In charge of
her workings and decisions, and (4).Increasing inequality; making the rich
richer and leaves the world's poorest people even worse off than they would
otherwise have been.[18]
In sum, Singer would deplore the World Trade Organisation's prioritisation of free
trade over workers' rights, animal rights, and environmental integrity.[19]
and again demands empowerment of international institutions to ensure that
these values are not overwhelmed in the pursuit of economic efficiency. [20]
The Idea of National Sovereignty: Here, Peter Singer argues that in a global community like ours,
international humanitarian interventions are sometimes not only desirable but also
demanded as acts of duty.[21]
He opines that countries of the world, especially those with adequate resources
should assist countries that stand in need of humanitarian interventions,
especially those that suffer from internal crisis and wars.[22]
A clear cut example is the responses of solidarity that America and Americans
got following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. He
would however criticise America and Americans of not showing similar responses
to countries submerged in conflicts and wars.[23]
He also argue that the rights and sovereignty of nations should however be
upheld in the course of these humanitarian interventions The US military invasion
of Iraq, after the September 11 occurrence, is a case in point of one that disregards
the sovereignty of a country, a country that is independent and sovereign.[24]
It is common knowledge that the US had, following the September 11
attack, accused Saddam Hussein, the then military leader of Iraq, of possessing
weapons of mass destruction, and of having connections to the World Trade Centre-bombing
terrorists. The US then sought to disarm Iraq by removing Saddam Hussein from
his position as leader of the country, thereby undermining the integrity,
independence, and sovereignty of Iraq. Peter Singer, in his work, hopes that the
US will act ethically by respecting the sovereignty of other nations, but
sadly, his hopes have certainly been dashed, as the US has again taken a
leading role in perpetuating attacks and invasions, in which ethics, especially
of the globally-oriented sort, do not count for anything.[25]
The Distribution of Aids: Here,
Peter Singer focuses more on individual action, suggesting that everyone who
can has a duty to help those who are less fortunate.[26]
Singer begins with the example of the flood of aids given to the families of
victims of the World Trade Centre attacks in 2001 even though many of these
families were already well provided for by insurance, pension rights, and other
safety policies. He would however note that Americans’ aids to the developing
world remains negligible, and it is in fact the lowest, in per capita terms, among
industrial nations.[27]
Peter Singer would further argue that we all have a duty to help the
greater global community, and not just those in our immediate vicinity, noting
that a few hundred dollars could alleviate great suffering if directed to the
proper places.[28]
Furthermore, Singer uses a thought-experiment to drive home his point. He paints
a scenario of a man who parked his Bugatti on some train tracks and that of a
child standing on a nearby train track. All of a sudden, a train starts coming.
If the man does nothing the kid will be killed, but the man has the option of
throwing a switch, which will divert the train to the tracks the Bugatti is on,
thereby saving the child but destroying the car, or to let the child be run
over by the train and thus preserve his car. Singer argues that we have similar
opportunities to save children's lives; donating 200 dollars, for Singer, is
like throwing the switch, since we lose something of value (200 dollars) but
save a life.[29]
From the above analogy, Peter Singer would seem to be positing that
we should help those in need, both those that are near and those that are very,
very far away. Thus, he would criticise the then President George Bush. For was
willing to demand some 70 billion dollars for the execution of his wars against
Iraq, meanwhile America’s foreign aid only amounts to 10 billion dollars
annually.[30] But
how do we come out from such a situation of selfishness and greed? Singer, he
would thus advise recommends that we develop the ethical foundations of the
coming era of a single world community, a community where the rights of every
country is respected, where there is collaboration among nations in the quest
to achieve their goals, a community where all the countries of the world share
in the pain and joy of of one another.[31]
More so, it is obvious that the position and advice of Peter Singer have
not been taken seriously by world leaders, especially leaders of industrialised
nations and dictatorial leaders of developing countries. Research has shown
that the US has further distanced itself from many of the institutions and
mechanisms designed to improve the global community, and even subverted
institutions it claims to wholeheartedly support, such as the World Trade
Organisation. Many other nations too have shown little or no interest in
fostering a global ethical community. But it must be pointed out, as argued by
Singer, that the overwhelming power and financial capacity of the
industrialised and wealthy nations who pay little or no attention to global ethics
might, in the long run, put them in an awkward position, a situation of
ultimate and utmost regrets, precisely because these so called industrialised
nations need the goods and services of the less industrialised nations for
their continued growth and survival.[32]
Evaluation
Peter Singer’s contributions to the
discourse on global ethics are apt and touching. For me, his arguments are
direct, honest, and forceful. There
are, however, some difficulties with his suggestions. One of the difficulties
would be the fact that distant suffering and the whole attempt at alleviating
it is not of much interest to most people. In addition, there's the difficulty
of actually determining that the money given contributes to saving a child and
that it is not misappropriated. Also, the satisfactory direct proof of having
saved a life will almost never be obtainable. Furthermore, the example of the train, the Bugatti and the child given by
Singer can be criticised for not aptly captivating the point. The example is
one of immediacy; were there adequate time there would be other solutions (for
e.g., warn the kid, move the Bugatti, etc.), and such life and death cases lead
to different outcomes than when there is time to deliberate. People often risk
their lives in order to try to save other people (in fires, do drowning) but will
not give a dollar to someone on the street, even if they are in obvious need.
In addition, no immediate expenditure is required in the train example; and
common sense would tell us that the loss of an asset (the Bugatti) is very
different from actually spending money in order to do something. Perhaps, a
better example would be if there were no Bugatti, but instead the switch was
coin-operated, requiring the payment of 200 dollars in order to throw it.
Furthermore, Peter Singer's arguments are largely
ethical, and therein lies one of the problems, namely, ethics, are not always
obvious and self-evident, and no matter how much is made mention of starving
and diseased peoples who could be fairly easily helped, if they are far away
people will always find more immediate concerns. Similarly, the consequences of
actions leading to global warming are not particularly obvious to consumers, who
thus remain convinced that their little pollution-contribution does not amount
to much as far as the world is concerned. These criticisms notwithstanding,
Singer’s arguments are for me on point. If ethics is necessary for our
continuous co-existence at the family and national levels, it is even more
expedient for international relations and co-existence. For me, a neglect of
the poor and needy with the excuse that they are not close to us is but to
shoot one’s self on the foot. A promotion of the wellbeing of the poor and the
needy is nothing more than a promotion of the world at large, a promotion of
the world will inevitably result to the promotion of the wellbeing of all, the
wealthy inclusive. Thus, I would subscribe to the doctrines of Peter Singer as contained
in this book of his under review.
Conclusion
Peter Singer’s book, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation,
is an interesting look highlighting very significant ethical issues affecting
all members of the world. It is a reminder that local actions and policies do
have global consequences, and that we should not ignore these global ethical
issues or relegate them to the background. His suggestions are, for me, timely
and pragmatic. A faithful observance of these suggestions, despite the difficulties
associated with them, will create a world where everyone sees the other, no
matter how far or near the other might be, as his neighbour, and act to ensure
the promotion of the wellbeing of the other. Our world, in Singer’s view, would
be a better place when we apply global ethics, it will, in the long, run result
in the overall the good and wellbeing of everyone.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anthony
Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, (Canbridge:
Polity Press, 1991) pp. 70-78
Eddy
Lee abd Marco Vivarelli,“The Social Impact of Globalization in the Developing
Countries” Forschungsinstitut Marco
Vivarelli, No. 1925, Januarym 2006.
International
Monetary Fund, “Globalization: A Brief
Overview” Issue 02/08, May 2008, https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2008/pdf/053008.pdf
Accessed 2/6/2016
Kiss Endre, “On the
Philosophy of the Contemporary Globalization” Journal of Globalization
Studies. Volume 4, No. 2, Nov, 2013
Louis
Pojman and James Fieser, Ethics:
Discovering Right and Wrong, Wadsworth: Gengage Learning, 2012.
Martin
Benjamin and Nigel Dower, “Development and Globalisation: the Ethical
Challenges” https://msu.edu/unit/phl/devconference/DowerE&Dv3.pdf pp;1-2
Accessed2/6.2016
Thomas
Nagel, “Ethics” Donald M. Bouchert (ed.) Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, 2006. Vol. 1, 2nd edition, New York, Thomson
Gale.
Peter Singer, One World:T he Ethics of Globalisation, London:
Yale University Press, 2002
William Scheuerman, "Globalization",
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/globalization/ Accessed 1/6/2016
[1]
Cf. Eddy Lee and Marco Vivarelli, “The Social Impact of Globalization in the Developing
Countries” Forschungsinstitut Marco
Vivarelli, No. 1925, January 2006, pp. 4-5
[2] Cf. Martin Benjamin and
Nigel Dower, “Development and Globalisation: the Ethical Challenges” https://msu.edu/unit/phl/devconference/DowerE&Dv3.pdf pp;1-2 Accessed 2/6.2016
[3] Cf. Louis Pojman and
James Fieser, Ethics: Discovering Right
and Wrong (Wadsworth: Gengage Learning, 2012), p. 2
[4] Cf. Thomas Nagel,
“Ethics” Donald M. Bouchert (ed.) Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, 2006. Vol. 1, 2nd edition, New York, Thomson Gale,
pp .379-380
[5] Cf. Kiss Endre, “On the Philosophy of the
Contemporary Globalization” Journal of Globalization
Studies. Volume 4, No. 2, Nov, 2013,
pp. 2-5
[6] Cf. International Monetary Fund, “Globalization: A Brief Overview” Issue
02/08, May 2008, https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2008/pdf/053008.pdf Accessed 2/6/2016
[8]
Cf. Scheuerman,
William, "Globalization", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer
2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/globalization/ Accessed 1/6/2016
[9] Cf.
Peter Singer, One World:T he Ethics of
Globalisation (London: Yale University Press, 2002), pp. 2-5
[10] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, pp. 14-18
[11] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, pp.19-20
[12] [12] Cf.
Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of
Globalisation p. 21
[13] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation
pp. 22-23
[14] Cf.
Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of
Globalisation pp. 25-26
[15] [15] Cf.
Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of
Globalisation p. 27
[16] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation pp. 51-55
[17] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation pp. 56-57
[18] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, pp. 58-100
[19] [19] Cf.
Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of
Globalisation p. 102
[20] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, p.105
[21] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, p.
106
[22] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, p.
1o8
[23] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, p. 110
[24] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, p. 137,
[25] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, pp. 148-149
[26] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, pp. 150-160
[27] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, p. 171
[28] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, pp. 172-175
[29] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, pp. 178-180
[30] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, p. 183
[31] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, p. 184
[32] Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, p. 185
Comments
Post a Comment