Global Justice Essay Plan

Basic Conclusion: No you do not owe more to members of your own

political community than you do to other human beings

Paragraph 1: Discuss social liberalist position:

- Set out Rawls view (laid out by Caney 2005) about distributional
justice holding within states because they are self contained
structures
- However argue that this distinction is no longer effective due to
globalisation and growing interdependence
- Move on to argue why brute luck as to nationality, particularly given
that nation boundaries are often arbitrary, or at worst unjust and we
also cannot ask people to simply move states as this is often hard

Paragraph 2: Veil of ignorance

- Use veil of ignorance to show why it is likely that people would
choose principles of global justice
- Use Pogge (2002) to show why it is difficult to hold that we should
have just institutions at a national but not international level as you
have to hold that there is a meaningful difference between people of
different nationalities particularly as it is based on brute luck

Paragraph 3: Global economic order

- Argue that it is difficult to hold that the current global economic
order is just as it allows an extremely dangerous level of death and
poverty, and is imposed by rich countries more than poor (G8,
Security Council, IMF, World Bank etc)
- Surely there should be some account of economic rights that work
like human rights to stop the life threatening poverty that is
imposed by the global economic order

Paragraph 4: Recognise that complete cosmopolitan redistribution is

impossible
- It is impossibly demanding as it doesnt recognise the impossibility
of holding there is no difference between acts and ommissions
- Here a difference between positive and negative obligations arise
which may give rise to a claim that there is a slight difference
between people of your own community (i.e. domestic poverty is
directly related to the actions of you as a member of that political
community, but less so internationally) however drawing on
elements of Pogges argument set out in paragraphs 2&3 that as
states do cause the unlevel playing field, this argument does not
hold as much weight as it initially seems to