Global economic justice is a concept that presupposes equal distribution of resources between all people of the Earth, taking into account their necessities and their input into the world’s economy. An ethical issue of whether wealthy people should share their resources with the poorer population has continuously stirred people’s minds. On the one hand, it seems unfair that wages for the same work differ drastically across the continents. On the other hand, the distribution of benefits by the states does not often take into account how much a person works and are allocated on the basis of needs rather than actual merits. This paper hypothesizes that the notion that the wealthier population should help the poorer is, in essence, right, and fair. Within this paper, two moral theories are applied to prove the validity of this position. Natural law theory and virtue ethics theory show that the notion that the wealthy should partially provide for the poorer is correct (Murdoch and Oater 561). Moreover, the arguments covered within two scientific articles are given to support the justice of such a notion.
The ethical issue of helping the poor is firmly rooted in our life. Many people donate money to the disabled or those who find themselves in severe life circumstances. All people are prone to illnesses, and there is no guarantee that one will not need help sooner or later (Singer 232). Economic crises or natural disasters leave people without money and shelter or without a job and the ability to provide for one’s family. While some people have too much money to spend, others suffer from hunger and water shortage. The concept of global economic justice presupposes distribution of recourses on account of people’s needs, allowing to avoid the situation when the most significant part of the planet’s resources is concentrated in the hands of a minority group.
To evaluate the issue of global economic justice two theories will be used. Natural law theory evaluates an issue through a series of tests that assess its intent and effects. When the overall benefits are compared against general harms, it is imperative to look at which side outweighs (Singer 231). The first step of analysis within the natural law theory is to see whether an action is permissible. Since there are no laws against helping the poor, and charity organizations enjoy exemption from taxes in many countries, the action is permissible. The next step of the analysis is to determine the positive and adverse effects of the issue. The positive effects are that the action benefits many people by reducing the level of poverty and providing access to medicine for low-income families. Moreover, the action helps combat many world diseases that abound in third-world countries due to the absence of hygiene, crowdedness, and extreme poverty. The adverse effects are not many since wealthy people here do not give away much-needed resources but share only the surplus of money they can spend on luxury goods (Murdoch and Oater 561). Adverse effects do not stem from the beneficial ones as, indeed, if not given to charity, the funds would probably remain in a bank account for a long time. Beneficial effects by far outweigh the adverse ones since they allow millions of people to improve their living conditions, get rid of diseases, and lead an economically active life, thus returning the money into the global economy. The intention of wealthy people who share their recourses with the low-income populace is, by all means, a noble one since they give away something that belongs to them for free. The overall picture shows that all three tests are passed within natural law theory: the action is permissible, the good effects outweigh the adverse ones, and the intention can be described as positive. So, the issue that wealthier people should share with the less fortunate ones seems well-grounded.
Virtue ethics theory seeks to find a golden middle, considering whether an act tends to go to extremes or is reasonably balanced. The balanced action is considered to be correct. Another test performed within this theory is evaluating an issue in terms of its merits and vices (Singer 241). If the action is performed to excess, rich people will give all their money to the poor, which does not seem fair since wealthy people worked hard to earn it. At the other end of the scale, if people do not share their resources, millions of people would live in poverty while billions of dollars would stay in the banks, not contributing to the world’s economy. The issue is balanced as neither the first nor the second extreme can get the upper hand over the other. The agent of the action – rich people who voluntarily share their resources – can be described as noble, so this test is passed.
Many authors support the notion of global economic justice. From an economic point of view, charity is a kind of mechanism for the redistribution of resources between the owner of resources and their consumer. Under certain conditions, this mechanism is more effective than tax since it initially involves lower unit costs of bringing the resource to the end-user. Affluent populations should share food and water with poorer countries, which would benefit both sides, as helping others people get a deep moral satisfaction (Murdoch and Oater 561). Redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor improves the general welfare of the population (Singer 241). It enhances societal awareness of the problems and the desire to work on them collectively as a community.
My own personal position is based on the economic aspect. I believe the redistribution of resources helps engage part of the population that would otherwise remain economically inactive. For example, when charity organizations build schools in the countries of the third world, they provide children with primary education which later may allow them to find a job (Murdoch and Oater 562). While uneducated women mostly stay at home, not contributing to countries’ economic development, education helps turn many people into economically active who can provide for themselves and their families.
Recently there has been a shift from providing resources to the poor to providing means and educating low-income groups on how to get these resources. The argument in favor of that is that this way population becomes economically active (Murdoch and Oater 562). Many businesses nowadays build factories in densely populated countries to provide the local people with jobs and social guarantees, which, ultimately, leads to the growth of the world economy.
The ethical issue of helping the poor and the disadvantaged finds support at many levels. Researchers provide various arguments supporting the provision of aid to the poor, proving that it is ethically right and economically beneficial for all. The natural law and virtue ethics theories both support the claim that the redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor is a moral and economically beneficial practice. My personal position is that helping others people is an excellent proceeding that allows people to feel needed, enhances their self-esteem and unites communities, and, globally, stimulates the growth of the world economy.