Global Justice In today’s world there is much suffering occurring such as war, famine, unequal opportunities and treatment of people, disparities between rich and poor countries. The problem in today’s society is there is a lack of global justice. According to Drydyk global justice means freedoms and opportunities to learn, work and feed and clothe people globally (Drydyk, 23). The importance of justice to business and society is to make the world just and bring equality for all. It is important for business and society to help other countries and treat them equally. It is important for business as well so that they can work fairly together to achieve the goal of global justice. Studying global justice allows people to become aware of the injustices that people around the globe face such as war, poverty, limited opportunities, etc. Moreover, global justice allows countries to be united under a legal system (Drydyk, 23). My research questions is what are the root causes of injustices in our world and how can they be solved? In this essay, I will demonstrate that the causes of injustices in our world stem from materialism (not helping the unfortunate nation because of selfishness and only caring about one countries profit), ignorance and capitalism where richer nations exploited poorer nations. First of all, I will discuss the issue of institutions of cosmopolitan failing to provide justice. Cosmopolitan principles urge for equality and moral worth of all humans and a shared economic system (Berry, 5). Similarly, Institutions of global justice fight to achieve moral equality and well being of people throughout the world (Kurasawa, 5). It is a process of reconstructing the world with human rights and cosmopolitan principles. Thomas Pogge a defender of cosmopolitan agrees that institutions are not abiding with the human rights principles. He indicates that the reason for lack of justice in society is because institutions are violating human rights principles (Pogge, 43). In fact, he urges that institutions of wealthy nations need to fulfill these rights globally because the global institutional order is formed by leaders of these rich nations (Pogge 44). Additionally, he indicates that the global institutional order provides poorer nations with some incentives and opportunities for their rulers. However, Pogge believes that poverty and injustice in the world is caused by the failures of this system. To demonstrate he states that the agreements of WTO to impose trade barriers, anti dumping duties, export credits, subsidies to domestic procedures have negatively affected poor countries. In fact these producers have protected markets in rich countries giving them more power but are responsible for two hundred seventy deaths since 1989 (Pogge, 50). Moreover, Pogge proposes that a solution to this problem is to impose a change in international property rights. He insists that everyone should have a right to proportional share of world’s resources. Furthermore, he encourages that the GRD should raise 1 percent of global social product to reduce poverty. He indicates that these small change that institutions should develop would raise 320 billion dollars yearly and these funds would be send global to help with heath care, food shortages and helping counties pay off their debts (Pogge 50). Therefore, Pogge feels that instittitions are benefiting themselves through protections access to their markets while ignoring the rights of the poor countries. To this end institutions of the affluent nations are failing to provide global justice. As a result they these institutions need to abide by the human rights principles and help in reducing poverty at a global level by cutting off trade barriers or other restrictions they have placed on these poorer nations. Similarly, Brian Berry another cosmopolitan agrees that institutions have failed to provide justice in the world. He indicates that many institutions are killing innocent people in the world because of their nationality, political views or class (Berry, 6). On the other hand, rulers that are running the country are only concerned about how much wealth they can accumulate. Moreover, he asserts that many rulers fail to complete basic functions like guaranteeing security and property of people (Berry, 13). However Berry demonstrates that organizations in richer countries like United Nations have tremendously failed. Berry mentions that United Nations goals are too far fetched and their performance falls below. He urges we should not depend on institutions anymore and should try to bring justice through families and communities. In addition, many of the wealthy countries fail to even get half way to their justice goals (Miller, 7). On the Contrary, David Miller argues that institutions are important to achieve global justice (Miller, 5). However, he is similar to Berry in sense that he agrees that governments and big institutions have failed such as the United Nations. To demonstrate, he mentions that the Pentagon gets rewarded seven million a day for their military budgets and that is equal to the total militarily budget of all nations combined (Kuper 157). This indicates that the US has massive amounts of money but they would rather use it on their won country then provide for the poorer nation which further indicates that there is a need for justice. Miller insists to achieve global justice the focus should be on national governments and global markets. In addition, he states that richer countries have ability to help poorer nations (Miller, 5). However, the larger organizations are not being sufficient. To demonstrate, he states that new reports indicate that famine spread over Niger and health care in Niger has become private with only a few individuals able to afford it. Although global corporations knew about the crisis in Niger the response of the international aid was unresponsive (Miller, 7). First of all the aid arrived slowly and the food could not be distributed because of the roads were not in stable conditions due to government failures (Miller, 7). This indicates that people do not care to bring justice in the world. Corporations are being ignorant to the poor country and are not acting fast enough. Therefore, he urges that smaller institutions should get together and help these countries. He argues that bigger corporations have other things to deal with and that’s why it is not good to leave this phenomenon up to them and therefore in his view small organizations should get together and provide aid to poor countries (Miller, 5). This section will take a different approach to justice by focusing on capitalism as root cause of injustice in the global economy. In the global economy in developing nations deteriorated after Second World War as a result of capitalism. Kia Nelson mentions that in the early 1960s USA started following a new order of capitalism and developed aid for people suffering in developing countries. Although the American food aid provided food for the countries they also succeeded in making the third world countries more economically dependent on the states. Through capitalism they turned food into a commodity which integrated the developing nations in an exchange system (Wilkins, 22). Not to mention it lead to a decrease in agriculture and thus contributed to poverty in the countryside and thereby increased unemployment. To make matters worse in the 1970s aid become much slower and food prices soared (Wilkins, 22). Additionally, as capitalism took over very few farmers remained and market places and urban workers were on rise. To this end he argues that the rich nations have an advantage over the poorer nations and they used it dominate and oppress the poor countries. He insists that through this control and domination the relationships between states have worsened and lead to great inequality (Wilkins, 22). In addition, he urges that the great disparity between north and south will not end until there are ties between nations and people in the world are all treated equally. Nevertheless, he advises that as long as capitalism exists we will not be able to recover the current world order. Similarly Jay Drydky a professor of philosophy argues that rich capitalist nations have taken over poor countries (Drydyk, 20). His emphasis that the affluent nations have deteriorated exploited and dominated the poor countries (Drydyk, 20). Health care system in poor countries is breaking apart because of the lack of aid from richer countries. Drydyk states that 800 million people are struggling to get health care (Drydyk, 25). Furthermore, save the children reports indicates that Zarie can only afford to spend 40 cents per head on health care yearly (Drydyk 25). Even more saddening Libya and Tanzania can only afford to spend 10 cents per head on health because capitalist nations are only concerned about the profits they make and neglect other countries concerns. He further states that each day 35, 000 people in the world die from hunger and other diseases (Drydyk 25). He strongly believes that getting rid of capitalism and turning to socialism will bring more justice. He argues that capitalism makes it difficult to achieve justice in society (Drydyk 24). To demonstrate, he asserts that the earth’s resources are being used up rapidly and living on earth is becoming expensive that it has come to the point where only richer people can afford to live (Drydyk 26). Also, capitalism took jobs away from people who were working on agriculture before and took away their lands and now people control all the means of living and as a result massive amounts of people live in poverty (Drydyk 27). As a result, people now have to find work to be able to eat, clothe and live. The advantage of being given a certain part of land has been taken away from those people. This in turn makes the rich richer and poor poorer (Drydyk 24). Capitalism leads to unequal opportunities in the third world countries mainly due to the shift from agriculture farming to capitalism (Drydyk 24). Nonetheless, the economic conditions between north and south are severe; north is doing much better that south in terms of employment in the south there are much higher unemployment rates and more people suffering room hunger and poor health care systems (Drydyk 24). He argues that the reason north is doing better because through capitalism in the north has taken away jobs and controlled the means of production (Drydyk 25). This is the reason Drydyk urges us to move to socialism (Drydyk 25). He indicates that the end of capitalism and move to socialism will ensure that people have rights and are even opportunity to land, food and basic necessities to life which will bring justice in the world (Drydyk 25). To conclude, capitalism has negatively affected global justice because it has taken away jobs from the poor, made poor countries depended on the rich and soared prices. Therefore, Drydyk and Kia Nelson assert that our ties with capitalism need to be cut off in order to gain global equality. This section will discuss the concept of individualism and its significance to bring justice on a global context. Individualism refers to one’s own wellbeing and interests over the rest of humanity. Hence, liberal individualism initiates that humans are able to revising and evaluating their lives to benefit people globally (Tan, 34). It urges that humans have common ties, obligations and they have important responsibilities to society and individuals and justice requires sacrifices on their part (Tan, 34). Deb Abby argues that individuals must change their attitudes and worry about others. He firmly believes that the capitalists system and the governments have failed us and now it is up to us to help make the world a better place with more equality (Abbey, 2). Furthermore, he argues that humankind has to smarten up and think about the future but more importantly we need to start investing and use our capital for social change (Abby, 6). Nonetheless, his main argument is that we need to be social investors and put our money to work. In fact, he points out that social investment will demonstrate to corporations that we are changing the world. To demonstrate he indicates that Shore Bank have created and placed 11 000 jobs, and 38 000 units of housing and invested US$305 million in small businesses (Abby, 143). He argues that South Shore runs a match saving account helping people save for small business or home. In addition, he indicates that Trios Bank in Netherland participated in a different funds set by charities and organizations (Abby, 143. Trios bank he states also sends money to farmers in India to start business selling milk (Abby 146). Therefore he demonstrates that community banking helps people with houses, jobs, benefits the environment and helps people locally and internationally. On the contrary, Peter Singer takes a rather different approach on individualism. He argues that humans need good ties and rejects that membership of a state should not dictates to give one person rather than another (Kuper, 155). Singer takes a rather different approach to help the poor than other compilations. He indicates that people should buy clothes and furniture from manufactures that help poor and from developing countries (Kuper, 155). In addition, he suggests that people should stop spending money on travelling, beach resorts, expensive restaurants and home decorations to provide for the poor (Kuper, 155). Consequently, Singers approach focuses on changing individuals rather than changing institutions. His approach is beneficial in the fact that he is arguing for people to stop wasting money on unnecessary things in life and give it over to poor nations. However, he urges that people should stop wasting their money on expensive resorts, restaurants and beaches rather that money on entertainment should be donated to the poorer countries. Therefore, individualism asserts that humans are selfish and do not spend much money on global issue rather depend on institution. Singer and Abby indicate that global justice will be achieved if individuals change their behavior and start help internationally because institutions alone have failed us. This section will focus on the egalitarian principles of justice and whether justice is possible. Egalitarian principles of justice fight to make the world a peaceful and moral community to live in with equal rights (Drydrk, 27). Egalitarianism goal is to distribute planets resources equally so everyone has equal opportunities. As a result, they want every family in world to be able to provide for their children. Kia Nelson mentions that there is a severe imbalance of resources available to people and they need to be redistributed (Neilson, 66). Furthermore, he states that the problem with concept of justice is that it only exists within a society with common labor force but not globally. Also, he initiates that there is lack of bonds and communication with people in far distances (Wilkins 15). To demonstrate he mentions that there is no bond between a Taude of Highland in New Guinea and a farmer in Manitoba. This is a problem because their work is similar there should be ties. In addition, he mentions that the lack of ties generate lack of access for people and resources. Additionally, the lack of global ties will negatively affect people in developed countries because they will not be able get access to resources therefore there will be a problem in distribution. In addition, he reveals that there need to be a redistribution of food, resources and technology (Wilkins 15). Furthermore, he insists that problem of redistribution of redistribution is neo Malthusians which is a control of population growth (Wilkins 17). Neo Malthusians argue that population growth will severely harm their world countries because demand will exceed capacity and therefore more people will suffer. However, initiates that the earth does have enough capacity to feed more people. He believes the problem of redistribution is that there is much fertile land not being distributed evenly (Wilkins 17). To demonstrate, Nelson states that Africa is suffering from famine conditions and decrease in agriculture yet they have half unused farmland. He argues that African farmland needs to be distributed so that people who are suffering could use the unused farmland and to progress agriculture (Wilkins 17). Therefore, he urges that people should have communal ties and unused land should be distributed so that there is equal distribution of resources and everyone has equal opportunities. Likewise, John Rawls an influential philosopher indicates in order to achieve justice must flow two principles. First one is the equalitarian liberty principle which consists of freedom of association (Fabre, 3). However, the second principle of justice indicates that inequalities in income should be considered only if it benefits the poor (Fabre, 3). Rawls argues that the second principle should only be used if there it will have a positive benefit to society and people should still be given equality in work. Rawls believes that this benefits society because he feels that if income is distributed equally amongst people in society then workers who make less will not contribute much (Fabre, 3). To exemplify if someone is working a gardener and someone as a doctor doctors make more will contribute more. He indicate that to distribute equally means a 100% cent tax rate is imposed on all workers whether they are doctors or gardeners same tax rate is imposed. He indicates since same tax rate is imposed gardener will contribute less to the needy because of high tax rate then compared to doctors because doctors earn much more income. However, he argues if income gets distributed unequally where a lower tax rate is enforced on wage earners and higher rate on professionals wage earners will contribute more because will be less tax cuts imposed on them (Fabre, 5). Rawls takes a different stance on egalitarian principles of justice because he is going beyond to allow for inequality if it benefits the poor.

Evaluative Part: I think that it will be difficult to achieve global justice. However with a couple of changes we will be closer to getting justice. I agree that institutions can try to help but how far can they go without the help of other individuals. They would need huge sums of money to be able to bring justice on their own. This is because Berry mentions institutions such as United Nations would have already achieved justice but they are falling way behind from their goals (Miller, 7). This leads me to agree with Brian Berry that institutions are not a great way of achieving justice because they are ignorant. However I do not agree with Singer that people should not spend money on beach resorts and expensive travelling and restaurants. I agree with Kuper that if people stop spending on resort and travelling then poor nations will become poorer. Jamaica and other countries in the south mostly make money from tourist that spends on their restaurant, hotel resorts (Kuper, 156). Therefore, if people stop spending money on the resorts then these poorer nations will lose massive amounts of income so this is why I do not really agree with Singer. I also disagree with Kia Nelson on capitalism. Although he raises good points on capitalism such as how it after world war and how it has lead to decrease in agriculture as a result left people landless dramatically increasing poverty (Wilkin, 22). However, Kia Nelison does not really give a solution to capitalism all he urges is that in order to achieve justice capitalism must end. In fact, he mentions that it is an impossible task and will take years for it to happen (Wilkin, 22). I disagree with Nelson because he does not really address how to solve the problem of capitalism which he insists is interfering with global justice. I however do not agree with Rawls theory. In my opinion Rawls theory is biased and based on logically incorrect information. To demonstrate, Rawls states that if we impose fewer taxes on wage earners they will give more to charity for poverty because less taxes means they will earn more (Fabre 4). However, this claim is not logical because there I no proof that gardeners will pay more towards poverty or will just benefit themselves with less tax. Additionally, I disagree with his claim that society can treat people unequally if it benefits the poor because according to human justice principles and egalitarian liberty everyone has the right to be treated equally (Drydrk, 24). Therefore, if Rawls justice is embedded in society then it will be going against human rights principles and therefore logically we may be helping people in need but creating inequality for others. My opinions about global justice lead me to also agree with Abby because I feel that if people save more and resources they will be enough to provide to needy nations. I agree with his point that communities should be investing together but I feel that he is talking only about local communities and not really giving insight on how saving and investments will help people globally (Abby, 143 ). His book is called global profit and global justice but I feel he is saying that communities should get together and help to save resources. But i disagree with this statement because countries like Africa do not have the resources to get together as communities and help each other (Wilkins, 32). In fact, it is stated in that many countries are living below the one dollar a day World Banks Poverty line (Wilkins, 32). This indicates that countries need help from richer nations and cannot support themselves from communities in their country. Nonetheless, according to Kia Nelson, Africa suffers from severe shortages of food and owes large sums of money (Wilkins, 15). They do not have the resources and money to get stared they need funds from richer nations. I think that richer nations should start getting their communities to do investments and then they should send some of the resources and money globally to help those need countries to get rid of poverty, hunger and get better health care system. Abby indicates that we should invest in communities like south shore bank but what the bank did was create jobs and housing in the states which is good (Abby, 143). I feel like the investments he is encouraging and talking about is making the richer countries richer by creating jobs and opportunities grow for people in richer states but not doing much for people in worse conditions globally. Furthermore, south shore bank is helping people save for homes and education yet again this is only helping individuals who are in the states and not much for people dying of starvation and other related diseases globally (Abby, 145). This indicates that Abby’s theory is only helping people in America and not really about bringing global equality. Therefore, I disagree with Abby’s theory because in my opinion he is not considering fixing global inequality.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, global justice is a relatively new concept that has become an issue today. Many people around the world are suffering from poverty, hunger, diseases and some people are dying. Additionally, countries are not able to afford to get and better public health care system and poorer countries without the help of richer nation are falling apart. The solution is that richer nations need to start caring about what is happening in the world they live in. Poor countries like Jamaica and South Africa need the help of countries like United States to help their economy. In order to achieve this people need to start treating everyone fairly and rich countries need to incorporate human justice principles and the wealth needs to be distributed more evenly.

Work Cited

Abby, Deb. Global profit and global justice using your money to change the world.
Publishers. British Columbia, 2004. Print.

Drydky, Jay. Global Justice Global Democracy. Society of Socialist Studies. Toronto, 1985. Print.
Fabre, Cecile. Justice in a Changing World. University of Edinburgh. Toronto, 2007. Print.
Kuper, Andrew. Global Responsibilities Who Must Deliver Human Rights. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. New York and London, 2005. Print.

Kurasawa, Fuyuki. The Work of Global Justice. The Work of Global Justice: Human Right as Practices. Print.

Miller, David. National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Tan, Kak-Chor. Toleration, Diversity and Global Justice. The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000.

Pogge, Tomas. Real World Justice Grounds, Principles, Human Rights, and Social Institutions. Springer, 2005. Print.

Wilkins, Barry. International Justice and the Third World. Routledge, 1992. Global. Print.