Darrel Moellendorf

Global inequality matters

Inequality and the Inherent Dignity of Persons Coercion and the Conditions of Distributive Justice Equal Respect in Political and Economic Associations Global Equality of Opportunity Defended International Trade, Development, and Labor Climate Change, Development, and Mitigation Global Distributive Institutions Notes Bibliography Index

Equality of Opportunity Globalized

The principle of global equality of opportunity is an important part of the commitment to global egalitarianism. In this paper I discuss how a principle of global equality of opportunity follows from a commitment to equal respect for the autonomy of all persons, and defend the principle against some of the criticism that it has received. The particular criticisms that I address contend that a moral view based upon dignity and respect cannot take properties of persons - such as their citizenship - as morally arbitrary, that any justification of what counts as equal opportunity sets must be based upon national cultural understandings, that a positive account of equality of opportunity cannot adequately handle the fact of value pluralism across the globe, and that the principle of equality of opportunity is incompatible with national self-determination. In the course of defending the principle of equality of opportunity from these criticisms, I make revisions to my previously published defense of the principle.

Hope as a Political Virtue

Abstract In this paper I argue that hope is best understood as a compound psychological state. When we take hope according to the details of this account, we are in a good position to understand why it is a political virtue of persons. I also argue that securing the institutional bases of hope is a virtue of state institutions, particularly in states in transition from severe injustice. And, finally, when the bases are secure, a person who fails to hope for the political future is in that regard prima facie blameworthy.

Two Doctrines of Jus ex Bello

This article discusses two doctrines of jus ex bello concerning whether and how to end wars. In Section I, I defend the claim that there is a distinct morality of ending wars. Section II rebuts a challenge that the account is too permissive of war. Section III rejects a forward-looking conception of proportionality for jus ex bello. In Section IV, I allow an exception in cases in which the just cause for the war has changed. In Section V, I defend five principles governing how to end a war.

Transcendental institutionalism and global justice

In The Idea of Justice (2009), Amartya Sen distinguishes between ‘transcendental institutional’ approaches to justice and ‘realization-focused comparisons,’ rejecting the former and recommending the latter as a normative approach to global justice. I argue that Sen’s project fails for three principal reasons. First, he misdiagnoses the problem with accounts that he refers to as transcendental-institutionalist. The problem is not with these kinds of accounts per se, but with particular features of prominent approaches. Second, Sen’s realization-focus does not account well for the value of institutions of global justice. And even Sen agrees that reforms to institutions are urgently needed. And third, the distinction between transcendentalism and comparative approaches is implausible. I close by suggesting a strategy for an alternative institutionalist approach that can offer the kind of guidance for reforming the global order that Sen rightly takes as urgent.

Can a Liberal State Make Access to Medical Education Conditional on Public Service

Abstract This paper is a contribution to the discussion of Gillian Brock and Michael Blake’s book “Debating Brain Drain.” It argues with Gillian Brock and against Michael Blake that a liberal state may make access to medical education conditional on public service of a reasonable duration after the completion of state supported education. Blake rejects this position on grounds that are broadly Rawlsian. This paper argues that such conditionality can be a reasonable limitation on liberty pursuant to the general satisfaction of a lexically prior basic needs principle, which includes a human right to health. Therefore such conditionality can be consistent with Rawlsian egalitarian liberalism generally.

Global ethics: a short reflection on then and now

Ten years on from the first issue of the Journal of Global Ethics, Darrel Moellendorf and Heather Widdows reflect on the current state of research in global ethics. To do this, they summarise a recent comprehensive road map of the field and provide a map of research by delineating the topics and approaches of leading scholars of global ethics collected together in the recently published Routledge Handbook of Global Ethics which they have co-edited. Topics fall under issues of war, conflict and violence; poverty and development; economic justice; bioethics and health justice; and environmental and climate justice. In all these areas, ethicists are becoming ever more engaged in the details and mechanisms of actually delivering justice in the real world.

Keynote Address to the Third International Global Ethics Association, 30 June 2010, Bristol Human dignity, respect, and global inequality

In this paper I argue that respect for human dignity establishes a justificatory presumption in favor of egalitarian rules, which presumption is applicable to the global economic association. This is the basis for condemning several feature of current global inequality as unjust.

World‐ownership, self‐ownership, and equality in Georgist philosophy

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the accounts of self- and world-ownership in the social philosophy of Henry George, and a Georgist social theorist Nicolaus Tideman. Design/methodology/approach - The accounts of George and Tideman are evaluated using the tool of conceptual and logical analysis. Findings - The paper argues that although the institutional proposals of Georgist are important and worth serious consideration, there are fundamental problems with the Georgist accounts of self- and world-ownership. Practical implications - The Georgist institutional recommendation of a land tax is not necessarily rejected by the criticism of the Georgist accounts of self- and world-ownership. Originality/value - The value of this paper derives from its careful analytic evaluation of the most basic concepts of the Georgist tradition. It serves, then, as a philosophical evaluation of that tradition and of those parts of the tradition that Georgism share with libertarianism generally. It also serves as a comparison of the basic commitments of Georgism and liberal egalitarianism.

Justice in Mitigation After Paris

Justice between generations requires that the present generation takes significant steps to limit and then halt global warming. International justice requires that this be done in a manner that is consistent with poorer states continuing to pursue energy intensive, poverty eradicating human development strategies. The de-centralized process of pledging emissions reductions incorporated in Paris Agreement provides significant protection to poor states, and it is to be cheered by advocates of international justice. But this same process is thus far inadequate to the task of realizing intergenerational justice. States must increase the ambition of their pledges significantly. And the burden in that regard must fall primarily on wealthy countries in order to ensure that poverty eradicating human development can continue where it is needed. But collective action problems may undermine efforts to ramp up ambition. If the price of renewable energy does not fall sufficiently, states may be likely to shirk their responsibilities. Even if the price of fossil fuels continues to fall, the political influence of the fossil fuel industry could frustrate the mitigation effort. The best prospects for achieving justice in mitigation after the Paris Agreement lies in the success of movements that seek to redirect energy investment and policy towards renewable energy.