Global Economic Justice
The best definition of justice is getting what is fair, or one has worked for. Distributive justice has to do with the fair dissemination of society’s resources to both local and international issues. Economic inequality has always been there since time immemorial, but its scale has been rising unnoticeably. Fortunate individuals should not help the poor or less fortunate people in the world since doing so only leads to worse of living conditions for both of them. Typically the issue of poverty arises from having a rapid population growth rate that cannot be controlled. Therefore by availing free food, this will worsen things as the population will continue enlarging even more.
However, the libertarian theories which emphasize on negative rights propose that we have no duties to the poor. According to these theories, the poor have no rights to be helped by the rich. On the other hand, egalitarian principles uphold the notion that justice entails equal distributions of resources among all individuals. Some egalitarians suggest that everyone should be allotted a given minimum of essential goods such as medical care and food.
According to Singer to help the poor of the world huge sacrifices have to be made. If we are capable of preventing something bad from happening, we ought to do it in as much as it does not require sacrificing anything of equal moral importance. On the contrary, Hardin stands firm that it is not a must to help those in need. Bottom-line for both Singer and Hardin their course of action is for the overall best result in the long run.
Inherent values are for all those who are experiencing subjects of life. It is not a must to know how many people have intrinsic values before we approve that some do. Similarly when it comes to animals right what is important is whether the animals that are routinely hunted, used in the lab and eaten are like humans in being subjected to life. According to Tom Regan view, non-human mammals have the same rights of not being harmed as people.
Regan argues for the ultimate objective, which is changing how people treat animals. In reaching this, he uses an approach that primarily focuses on the inherent values shared by both humans and animals. His theory regards good as that which maximizes the overall happiness equally for both animals and man. What is bad or obvious in humans is equally the same for the animals.
However, Regan’s theory is not persuasive enough, and it has shortcomings that a rational and sensible person may not come to terms with. This is not to say that some non-human animals have moral rights, they do as they can be victims of frustration, pain, suffering, pleasure or satisfaction. But all these cannot be compared to the moral rights of a person.
The rights of animals may be overruled in conditions which would not justify overriding the rights of a human being. For instance, in reality, the reason that might lead us into killing an animal can be reason enough to terminate a person’s life. Animal rights are weaker than human rights since people are at least capable of being moved to action or standstill by the forces of rational thinking. This rationality makes people much better than animals as it provides greater chances of cooperation. Also, it also makes us more lethal than a non-rational animal might be. As a result of being unpredictable humans need a more articulated system of morality to regulate their conduct.
The debate on abortion is vast, and people vary in reasoning based on their moral and personal arguments. About half of all the pregnancies are always unintended, and quite a large percentage of them are terminated. However abortion is not always deliberately intended to end a pregnancy, in some cases, it might be necessitated so as to save the life of the mother. The methods used in aborting vary depending on the stage at which the expectant is. The likelihood of death as a result of abortion increases with the length of pregnancy.
According to the Roe case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that although women have a constitutional right to abort this right is not unlimited. The decision on whether to terminate a pregnancy is up to a woman and her physician’s consultations. However, the state may come in and forbid the act when it is not aimed at preserving the life of the woman.
An act utilitarian would not oppose abortion so long as in the long run it grants everyone’s happiness. From a Christian perspective intentionally termination of the life of a fetus is wrong regardless of the act’s motive. Arguments for or against abortion can be classified into liberal, conservative or moderate. The Christians and most traditions argument fall under conservative where abortion is never permissive as it is committing murder. As for the liberal and moderate position the fetus is not considered to have rights, hence terminating a pregnancy may be allowed under certain circumstances.