Elderfield - Paper 1
.docx
School
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
PHIL 441
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 16, 2024
Pages
4
Uploaded by aelderfield1
Paper 1 PHIL 441 Abigail Elderfield 9/02/18In the chapter One Economy, Singer presents the context of economic globalisation. His concern isthat currently, global capitalism is inherently flawed and he seeks a way of dealing with the problemsthat concern the global economy. His solution is to implement a minimal concept of democracy whichallows for countries with an obvious authority to participate in the global economy. I argue that aminimalist concept of democracy undermines the nature of what it means to have a global economy.The concern is thatit legitimises and consolidates the divide of an unequal power dynamic betweendeveloping and developed countries.By refraining from preventing the states which do not implementa sufficient level of democracy to participate on the global level, the global economy cannot run fairlyor efficiently. I offer my arguments in response to Singer and deal with some criticisms. Singer argues that state sovereignty does not have a clear intrinsic moral standing. His solution to thisproblem is to implement a minimal version of democracy which would avoid the difficulties withinvolvement on a global scale from the countries which are not directed by a clear morality. Thesecountries would legitimately be involved in organisations such as the WTO which seeks to remove thebarriers to free trade as this would “make people better off on average in the long run”1. However,Singer recognises that there is a need to reform global institutions of trade so all, including those inpoverty, are getting benefit of natural resources. He balances charges against the WTO, evaluatingthat whilst it has problems, it is inevitable that countries must be able to participate. Currently, theycan be involved regardless of the democratic freedom of the people of the state. For Singer, thelegitimacy of a state ought to be bound in a “minimalist concept of democracy”2to allow for thisparticipation.I offer arguments against Singer’s argument. A minimal concept of democracy lowers theinternational standards for human rights and labor health and safety concerns in developing anddeveloped countries. This deregulates the concept of equality within globalisation. A reduced standardof democracy directly reflects on to the standard which is upheld in terms of the nature of humanrights legislation. If the good for individuals is not considered on a state level, then humans are notput first on a regional level. In the case of the workers affected by the Bangladesh disaster, the1Peter Singer, One World Now: The Ethics of Globalisation (Oxford, 2009) p. 702Singer, One World Now, p. 1201
Paper 1 PHIL 441 Abigail Elderfield 9/02/18workplace environment was directly affected. The authorities were warned of the danger of thebuilding preceding the collapse, but no action was implemented to deal with the health and safety ofthe workers. In contrast, the workers, “who were not unionized, were told to go to work and,according to some reports, threatened with the loss of a month’s pay if they refused”3. In directrelation to the lack of representation of the workers, the owner had been permitted the debilitatingwork conditions because of his “political influence”. Therefore, the correlation between the wrongfulworking conditions and low standard of democratic practice is evident. Furthermore, anotherimpediment caused by low democratic standards is an implication on human rights. Through offeringa minimal concept of democracy, individual concern is sacrificed on behalf of the concern of theinstitution. In this sense, a focus on human rights which considers the whole, autonomous person andtheir treatment in society is brushed aside. The issue concerning Child Labour in Pakistan relates tothis problem. Whilst Pakistan has legislation against child labour, the government “has taken verylittle action to combat it”4. Nike and other companies seek to benefit from the “authoritariangovernment” which does not implement adequate human rights measures to deal with this problem.Again, it is possible to see that the lack of a high level of democracy leads to a lowering of theinternational standards regarding human rights and protection for workers. The minimal concept ofdemocracy also affects the egalitarianism of the global economy.A minimal concept of democracy cannot be justified because it allows for the continuation andprevalence of autocracy and illegitimate powers to continue to gain control. This has certaindetrimental consequences on poverty as it restricts the ability of impoverished individuals to thrive insociety. Singer, through advocating for a minimal concept of democracy, does not centralise theindividuals who are ignored by state policy and legislation. The case provided of Angola in Africashows how, whilst a small proportion of the country is benefitting from the oil that is produced, it hasalso been ranked by UNICEF as “the worst country in the world for the rate at which its children diebefore the age of five”5. Whilst this is a major problem, the state of the political power in the countryreflects this inequality as the power is controlled by “the daughter of the country’s autocratic ruler”.3Peter Singer, One World Now, p. 1074http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/newscast/66site accessed 7/2/185Singer, One World Now, p. 1122
Paper 1 PHIL 441 Abigail Elderfield 9/02/18Therefore, this suggests that the aim of the state is not only ignoring the strife of those facing povertybut centralising the interests of the privileged few. This impends on a global stage because Angola,for example, is still producing oil and benefitting economically. Furthermore, this is also reflected inthe case of Equatorial Guinea. Foreign companies are also benefiting whilst ignoring the extremepoverty that is being faced because of a lack of democracy. The autocratic ruler of Equatorial Guineastill holds elections however, they “have been described by international observers as falling wellshort of democratic standards”6. Singer just accepts this reduced state of democracy throughhighlighting the lack of challenge citing that “democratic governments often trade with countrieswhile disapproving of their regimes”. The situation that is presented is that through the fact thatcountries which operate under a minimal conception of democracy are not being challenged, issuessuch as poverty are not being dealt with and authoritarianism is promulgated. This causesrepercussions on the state of the global economy as the dominance of illegitimate powers directs theeconomic growth, with undeveloped countries struggling to benefit in any way.Whilst Singer’s argument of considering a “minimal concept of democracy” has a negative impact onthe definition of state legitimacy, it can be argued that there are some concerns with enforcing ahigher standard of democracy. Singer argues that it would be difficult to decide when a government issufficiently democratic to be recognised as being legitimate.7International Groups, such as the WorldTrade Organisation, allow for a minimal concept of democracy in the sense that “whether agovernment is legitimate is whether it is in effective control of the territory”8. Therefore, if these arethe boundaries which are being implemented by a global organisation such as the WTO and theUnited Nations, it is evident, according to Singer, that this should be reflected in global organisations.Nevertheless, if a higher concept of democracy was implemented, Singer argues that this would meanwe would have to completely re-think “the use of military intervention for humanitarian purposes”9.This would, in Singer’s opinion, exclude countries such as the United States which, whilst notimperfect, have a sustainable level of democracy.6Singer, One World Now, p. 1137Singer, One World Now, p. 1198Singer, One World Now, p. 1169Singer, One World Now, p. 1193
Paper 1 PHIL 441 Abigail Elderfield 9/02/18However, there are some serious issues with Singer’s argument. By disregarding the concept of ahigher standard of democracy, he accepts the fundamental issues which are at the core of what itmeans to be democratic. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, “the will of the peopleshall be the basis of the authority of government”, it places the individuals at the centre of politicaland economic interests. For any legislation to be passed, it ought to be for the good of the people ofthe state. Otherwise, if people do not feel they are being listened to on a state level, it would beimpossible for them to feel they are considered on a global scale. This leads to diaspora, the need toreaffirm a cultural identity and disconnection from consolidating international relations. For example,the vote to remain in the EU in United Kingdom has led to a disparity for the future of relationsbetween Britain and the rest of Europe. In addition, an economic consequence is that Britain is beingremoved from the single market, heightening tensions in concern with economic stability. Singer’slowered standard of democracy does not recognise the repercussions that a complete focus on theinstitution rather than the individual has on the global economic stage.Conclusively, I argue that a higher standard of democracy is vital for global economic prosperity.Instilling a “minimal concept of democracy” on a globalised level leads to a justification for theexistence of autocracy and allows countries to evade a sufficient standard of human rights. It ought tobe vital that countries are held to account to benefit the people and represent the interests of theindividual to further the economy. Bibliography:Singer, P. One World Now: The Ethics of Globalisation(Oxford, 2009) http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/newscast/66site accessed 7/2/18 4