Thomas Pogge's Lecture: Foreign Drivers of Domestic Injustice

Today Thomas Pogge delivered a lecture at the Department of Political Science, Delhi University. The lecture was titled " Foreign Drivers of Domestic Injustice". The post is a summary of his lecture.

Inequality of the kind that is a result of one's inborn condition is an expression of justice. Now not all inequality is injustice particularly if it's a result of one's choice.  But condition of inequality that is perpetuated and compounded because of being born into a specific economic class, social caste etc. is a case of injustice.

In India the gap between those at the highest rung of the economic ladder and those at the bottom is extremely wide. It's the widest in the world after Russia. But those at the top would want to perpetuate this gap. Now we need to ask why there are few at the top rung and many at the lowest rung of this economic ladder, and how they are able to sustain this gap. After all addressing injustice would mean working towards moving those at the lowest rung to the higher rung. Because only by going up the economic ladder, one can have better housing, education, healthcare etc.

Now those at the top rung are able to pull resources together to lobby the political powers and get tax laws work in their favour. The poor are unable to gather resources that way, and even if they try to make such an effort, the benefit they will get out of such lobby is not worth the effort. However, those at the top rung have such resources and even if they pull together 1% of their resources to lobby, the benefit they get out of such effort would yield them a benefit of, say, 10%. This way those at the top rung influences policy and frame rules and laws in their favour.

But how do foreign players perpetuate domestic injustice?

There are countries in the world that serve as parking lot for the rich's money. As the rich folks park their money in countries like Panama, Singapore, Mauritius etc., these folks evade paying taxes at home. This is illegal and yet it is done. Many a time the politicians at home refuse to take action or refuse to call these nations to stop this practice because the rich folks lobby with the government and are able to persuade the government not to act. Moreover, many politicians park their own money. This is one way foreign hands perpetuate and compound injustice in certain other countries.

There is also another way where foreign hands compound inequality at the domestic level. Rich countries invest money in research work and when finding is made, the medical knowledge/formula gets patented. Country like India requires cheap medicine to meet the requirement of its poor citizens. In the past Indian pharmaceutical companies were able to reproduce this medicine cheaply for its citizens by learning from those who have produced it. However, now with intellectual property rights becoming more rigid abroad, rich pharmaceutical companies abroad through their political leaders bargain hard with countries like India so that India would also have a much more rigid pharmaceutical laws. This rigid pharmaceutical law would in turn criminalise reproduction of patented medicine without permission. At the same time, there are rich Indian who would also like to export their produce to other countries. So, in exchange for a more rigid intellectual property rights at home, which would then not allow Indian pharmaceutical companies to reproduce cheap medicine, India would ask foreign countries to reduce its import duty so that Indian rich businessmen and businesswomen could export their produce to this foreign countries. The result is that the poorer section of the community in India become the casualty of such arrangement that came about through negotiation.

Thus, the rich ones will continue to seat at the top, while the poor ones suffer at the bottom... because the trading laws and policies have been framed to suit the interest of the rich while compounding the problem of the poor. This is how injustice is perpetuated.

God and Government: Chapter 4

This chapter is written by David McIlroy, a practising barrister. It is titled " The role of government is classical Christian political thought".

One of the points the author underscores, drawn from ancient Christian thinkers, is that Government is accountable to God. And

Another point the author underscores, as the previous authors have also stated, is that Government is limited. He goes to say that "it is now almost universally recognized in Christian thought that the Church's role is not to take over or dominate government either." This I understand to be saying that Christians are not in favour of a theocratic government.

What rather surprises me is the assertion that even in ancient times, Christian theologians asserted a limited form of government. However, it seems to the present form of limited government and the ancient form of limited government could have been different.

Christian political thinkers also make a distinction between state's law and church's morality. Or rather difference between 'shallow justice' and 'deep justice. The state may legislate certain form of moral norms, but this is not necessarily going to be similar to that of the church. The church may consider certain action immoral, but this necessarily cannot be legislated as illegal. So state's law can be termed as 'shallow justice' because it does not touch upon all aspects of ethical issues; and the church's law may be termed as 'deep justice' because it goes much deeper than that of the state.

The state in its legislation must take into consideration the common good. It must see that it's resources are distributed towards meeting the need of the poor too.

God and Government: Chapter 2

This is the second chapter of God and Government. The summary of the first chapter is here. The second chapter is titled "The nature and role of government in the Bible". It is written by Julian Rivers, who is a professor of Jurisprudence at Bristol University.

The Bible is ambivalent about government. Jesus says, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's". But what is Caesar's and what is God's? The answer is not clear. But what is clear is that God is the ruler of all; and government is the product of human activity, as the previous chapter underscored. 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Rom 13:1-7 make it clear that government has legitimacy and therefore one must submit to government's authority. Of course this does not mean that the government is the ultimate authority and that whatever government says is good. There are clear examples when what government says is bad. But the point is established that government has legitimate authority upon people.

The government authority, however, is limited. It is so because there are other parallel authorities. Other authorities like the church, family and the individual's autonomy limit government's authority.

There are four areas in which the government's authority is limited. "equality, legality, diffusion and accountability". What do they mean?

Bible underscores equality of all humans. The Bible thus talks about equal distribution of land and other resources. But does it endorse an egalitarian distribution? The Bible provides a devastating critique against hoarding of material possession by the rich at the expense of the extreme poor, but does not provide answer how equal distribution could be realised. There is practical room for government not to enforce egalitarian distribution of wealth. After all such a government is not really feasibly, so to speak.

Government does not function independent of its own law. It is subject to law. This way its authority is limited.

Government also diffuse powers to local institutions. This limits government's authority. Israel was a tribal federation, not an absolute monarchy. The prophets were able to critique the king because they were not co-opted into the king's court though there were prophets who are patronised by the king. Too much of centralisation of power should be limited.

Government should be accountable. This is to be achieved by different departments being accountable to one another. Judiciary, executive and so on should be able accountable to one another.

God and Government: Chapter 1

This is a summary of the book God and Government, edited by Nick Spencer and Jonathan Chaplin and published by SPCK in 2009. I shall try to summarise the chapters as the author underscores in the text. And then whenever possible, I shall give my own comment.

The first chapter is titled " Government as an ambiguous power" written by Nigel Wright, who served as the Principal of Spurgeon College, London.

The author argues that the Church should maintain a critical distance from political institutions. This way the church would be able to critique the institution whenever required. However, an individual Christian must be part of the political institution as he or she feels called. Elijah was a prophet who maintained a critical distance from the political office of the day, and he spoke the voice of the one in heaven. He carried the 'official' voice from God. However, Obadiah was an individual who worked as part of the institution in the king's court. By working this way, he was able to secure a safe place for so many faithful folks. As led by the Spirit and one's conscience, Christian must find one's place.

God created the world and the humans. Since these are God's creations, they are good. However, something has gone wrong. It is important to bear this tension in mind as one looks at human institutions. Whether it is government or institutions, they are the product of human activities. Given that humans bear the tension of being good and bad, the product of human imaginations and activities will bear this tension. Through human cooperation, laws and agencies to foster human well-being arise. They are there to pursue human well-being. But because humans bear the tension of being good and bad, as an individual and as a collective body, our activities -- individual or collective, will not necessarily always be bad or good. On one hand government will be good; on the other hand government need not be good. The tendency to work for the enrichment of those in power, not taking into the interest of all the members of the society will surface over and over again. This is where the Church has a critical role to play.

The Church has a redeeming role to play. The government has a role to maintain stability and order. The government may advance criminal justice by using coercion and also develop institutions for promoting peace. This is essential. However, this aspect of preserving the order cannot redeem humans. But what this allows is that it gives the Church that peaceful environment to proclaim Christ and his redemptive work. This also serves as an important point in the separation of church and state. The church is free from the clutch of the state, and it is free to maintain a critical distance. At the same time, the Church does not have a grip over the function of the state though it may influence. The Church also does not seek any special privilege that people of other religions do not enjoy. This is about loving the neighbours!

Is Gay Right a Human Right Issue?

Is gay right is a human right? Someone argued here that gay right is a human right issue. He argued that since it is a human right issue, it should be decriminalised. I agree that it should be decriminalised, but I disagree with the reason provided for why it should be decriminalised. 

Human rights are rights that each person possesses by virtue of being a human person, and violating human right amounts to dehumanising the person. If a person is forced to have sex against her or his consent, that can be a violation of her or his human rights. But if a person is not allowed to have sex, will that be a violation of her or his human right? Or if I put it in a slightly different way: if a person chooses to restrain from sex, would she or he be violating her or his human rights? I would answer the latter question in negative; celibacy is not a violation of one's human rights. I shall come back to the former question later. 

But one may argue that there is a difference between choosing to remain single and being forced to remain single. After all, there is a difference between choosing to fast voluntarily and being forced to starve. If I choose to fast voluntarily, that is not a violation of human right; but if I was forcefully starved, that would be a violation of human right. Now is this analogy quite right? Is state's position -- or rather lack of it -- in not positively legitimising gay sex akin to not positively providing food where and when there is starvation? I think there is a difference. No one can survive without food; one can live well without expression of homosexual activity or heterosexual activity. But one may still argue that the state not legitimizing same sex union is different from forcing a person not to have same sex relation. And I do think that there is a difference. Let me take the latter case first i.e the state forcing a person not to have same sex relation. This is also the question that I paused in the second paragraph.

The state forcing a person not to have same sex relation would mean that the state criminalises people who have same sex relation; meaning, the state considers homosexual activity a crime.

Now if gay right is a human right, what would that mean? Now if gay right is a human right, the state has to take steps to positively and actively promote and legitimise it. This is what being an item of human right would mean. If starvation is a human right issue, then the state should not only starve people, but when there is starvation the state has to actively work and ensure that starvation is wiped out. Now this is problematic.

But are these two the only options -- The state criminalising homosexual activity and the state legitimising and advancing gay marriage saying that it is a matter of human right?

Now if same sex union is a human right, then those religious communities that teach the members of the community against homosexual practice cannot do that. Because saying that homosexual practice is morally wrong and should refrain from that would be a violation of human right of someone. So I would say that to argue for expression of homosexual taste. based on human right is a wrong-headed argument. In my previous post, from a different perspective I argue why same sex marriage should not be legalised, but also why it should not be criminalised; I argue that it should be a non-criminal act yet not a legalised act that the state affirms, recongises and celebrates. It should rather be treated like live-in relationship which is neither a criminal activity nor a legal union.

I agree that homosexual practice should be decriminalised. But to argue for that based on human right is, I think, a mistake. Human right is a thin idea. To put different kinds of right into the category of human right is to do disservice to human right. I think decriminalisation of same sex relation should rather be argued based on the idea of a liberal state.

So the third option is consider it as a non-criminal act, and leave it at that. This is to say that the state is not criminalising it nor is it legalising it. The state does not legitimise gay union no more or no less that it does with adultery or fornication. This way it leaves room for religious communities the freedom to shape the moral consciousness of the members and also the gays to be single or otherwise and also it leaves the state not too morally stringent that it curtails individual liberty nor too morally loose that age old civilisational scaffold like marriage and religious teachings are undermined. 

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 5

Here is chapter 4, where Nick gives a preliminary response to those who argue that justice is virtually absent in the New Testament. In this chapter, Nick argues from the New Testament to demonstrate that justice is very much part of what Jesus teaches and demonstrates; and thus leaves behind a legacy, a command, for his disciples to continue.

But first a brief remark about terminology. In Greek literature, say, Plato's The Republic the Greek term 'dikaiosune' would be consistently translated into English as justice. However, in the Bible it is not consistently translated like that. In the New Testament, which is originally written in common Greek,  the same word 'dikaiosune' is not always translated as 'justice'; it is more often translated as 'righteousness'. For example, as in Matthew 5 & 6 -- Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for dikaiosune (v.6); and Blessed are those who are persecuted for dikaiosune (v.10); Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his dikaiosune (6.33). All these verses have dikaiosune translated as 'righteousness' instead of 'justice'. Why such a difference between New Testament and The Republic, which are both Greek literature? The Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament, which possibly was translated in the second century BC translates the Hebrew word tsedaqa as dikaiosune and  mishpat as krisis which is more of a legal terminology.  Thus Tsedaqa becomes dikaiosune in Greek and righteousness in English; while mishpat becomes krisis in Greek and justice in English. However, it has to be said that this translation is not 100% accurate, and whether the verse has to be translated as righteousness or justice has to depend on context too. Nick would thus hold that Mat 5.10 should have 'justice' instead of 'righteousness', provided we assume that 'righteousness' is more about moral status of the individual and 'justice' as denoting inter-personal relationship. 

Nick uses NT scholar Richard Hays' commentary to argue for his case. Nick argues that Mary's song in Luke 1 is about anticipation of justice that the Messiah would usher in. Luke 4 where Jesus reads out Isaiah's text and declares the arrival of the promise then and there is about justice -- justice for the poor, the weak and the prisoners. Furthermore, Nick argues that Jesus' ministry includes those who are left out of the society -- the deaf, dumb, blind, paralytics etc. -- besides lifting up those who were at the bottom-- the poor, widows, orphans, aliens, imprisoned. Jesus remakes a society that is inclusive, and this is about justice. 

Does Jesus consider human being to have worth? He does, argues Nick. 'How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep?' asks Jesus, indicating that humans have worth. Furthermore, Jesus says that human is worth more than a sparrow! Nick opines that it seems fair to conclude that Jesus' belief in equal human worth is the reason for showing no partiality between  thosewho are ritually clean and unclean or between those who are rich and poor.

As is the case with any good thinker, to fend off criticism, Nick does hair splitting of his arguments at various points. I am not going into the detail in these posts. Any objection to his arguments should be held back before reading his book. 

Amos 1

In the first chapter, the word of God came to Amos concerning Israel's neighbouring nations. God's thunderous judgment through Amos came on Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom and Ammon. And these were the reasons why God was pouring out his judgment on different nations. Damascus was so cruel that she 'threshed Gilead with sledges having iron teeth' (v.3). Gaza and Tyre were merciless, engaging in selling people who they conqured to other nation. They were not selling just the soldiers who fought them but the 'whole community', which would include women, children and the aged. Edom is Esau's descendants and are related to Jacob's descendant Israel/Judah by blood. Discounting this relation, Edom stifled compassion and pursued his brother... For this the Lord will send fire and consume her cities and fortresses. To extend its territory, Ammon ripped open pregnant women and committed heinous crime. On all these nations, the Lord is giving his judgment and for the sins they committed He will pour out his wrath and thus kings and cities will face stormy days ahead. 

One common feature different nations committed here was war crime. War was not uncommon then. Yet God expects fair conduct in war. The issue whether war is ever just or not is not the point here. War takes place; that God acknowledges. What God takes issue with each nation here is army excesses. And for the war crime the nations committed, God pours out his punishment!

The concept of war crime then and now, as acknowledged by international bodies, are different. The modern version of war crime is more refined and broader. For example, use of chemical agent to target civilians would be considered war crime today. Chemical agent was not there in the past. God's anger today would include gassing civilians, not just tear open pregnant women's bellies. God's command not to murder remains unchanged throughout centuries ( killing is different from murder; murder is not justifiable by definition, killing can be justifiable), yet in certain areas God's expectation changes-- as in war crimes that nation-states are to abstain from. 

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 3

This is Chapter 3, titled as 'Justice in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible'. The previous chapter is here. This chapter argues about the concept justice found in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible (I shall use only 'Bible'). The next chapter will argue from the New Testament.

Nick begins by stating the two positions as: justice as right order vis-a-vis justice as inherent right. In these posts, I am going to refer the proponents of the two positions as right order theorists and right theorists respectively. Right order theorists can endorse natural right; and one can say that this sort of right is conferred by God. But, Nick continues, right order theorists are not happy with the idea of inherent right or the idea that human right in an inherent right. So his attempt is to do an inquiry if the idea of inherent human right is found the Bible or it's not there. At the end of the chapter, he argues that one can fairly draw out the idea of inherent human right from the Scripture. But before he goes on to do that, he takes on Oliver Donovan and gives a counter-explanation from the Scripture about the nature of justice found in the Bible. This is how he goes about doing it. 

Nick argues that Oliver O'Donovan's understanding of justice found in the Bible is incomplete. O'Donovan's understanding does not take into consideration the concept of primary justice, says Nick; only the idea of rectifying justice is present in O'Donovan's thesis. How does one explain primary justice and rectifying justice? Primary justice is about the condition of a society where justice prevails. But when a robber breaks into a house and runs away with the loot, primary justice is impaired. Now rectifying justice will have to kick in by catching the thief and returning the loot to the owner. So rectifying justice is about seeking to rectify the primary justice that has been impaired. Now when O'Donovan gives the explanation of the concept of justice found in the Bible, Nick argues that O'Donovan thinks that biblical concept of justice deals only with rectifying justice. Nick finds O'Donovan's finding inadequate. Nick says the idea of rectifying justice can be there only when the idea of primary justice is there; it makes no sense to speak of rectifying justice without taking into account the idea of primary justice. And in the Bible one can find, says Nick, the concept of primary justice as well as  rectifying justice.

Thus in the Bible, Israel is called by God to live justly in its society. God also enjoins non-Israelite nations to live justly. Living justly is required not only of Israel, but of non-Israelite too. Why so? Because God is just and holy. This holiness of God (morality purity) is not something that obtains when God observes a law imposed on him from without; but holiness is rooted in God himself. He cannot be unholy just as God cannot cease to exist. (I am reminded of Plato's Euthyphro dillemma; but if one understands God's holiness as rooted in himself as Nick and others argue, the dillemma really dissolves. But this is not really part of the what the book says.) Nick does not delve much into this area, but goes on to the text to argue that Israel considers God rightly holding the people accountable for their actions. And when people sin, they seek God's forgiveness-- or must seek forgiveness. Thus God has right to hold the people accountable and that God has right to seek our obedience. Nick argues that that was the way biblical writers understand about God and human relations. I think this is a fair conclusion from the Bible one can gather. This is a key point about rights.

Right God has over the people are understood to be grounded by Israel's writers on God's excellence. "In that assumption by Israel's writers, that God has rights grounded in God's excellence, is to be discerned a recognition of inherent natural rights". This is another  key point Nick makes! I think the idea that God has inherent right is rather a strange but indisputable point.

From this concept of God possessing inherent natural right, Nick argues that human being as little gods possesses inherent right. Human being are created little lower than angels/ human being are created bearing the image of God; so humans have inherent right. 

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 2

This is the second chapter of the book, but the third post. The previous post is here. This second chapter is titled 'A Contest of Narratives'.

The right order theorists tell a story that says something to the effect that the idea of subjective right develops with the emergence of political liberalism. (Political liberalism is that strand of political thought that considers rights of an individual as the first virtue a state must protect.) Other writer would trace the source of the idea of subjective/natural right to the writing of Ockham. Now Ockham was a thinker belonging to the Franciscan order. After the death of St. Francis, who had voluntarily chosen a life of poverty, there was a dispute between the Pope and the Franciscan. The Pope was of the opinion that the Franciscan did have some sort of ownership of property. One of the effects of having to give up ownership of everything would mean that the church cannot own anything. Ockham and others went to make a case that it is lawful to give up right to own property, but one cannot renounce the 'natural right' to use properties that may belong to someone. Thus, argue right orders theorists, Ockham invented the idea of subjective right... Nick argues that the idea of such of kind of right goes much older than Ockham and political thinkers like Hobbes and Locke.

Nick counter-argues by saying that the right theorists narrative fail to adequately take into consideration the account of right that was already in use in the works of the jurists in the medieval period and also by the older thinkers. Nick cites research work by different modern writers to make a case that the Roman jurists were using the idea of subjective right in their work, and that those who argue that subjective/natural right emerged in Medieval period did not adequately take into consideration the different ways 'right' was employed For example, those in jurisprudence employed the idea in their work. Going beyond that, Nick also argues that when Ockham, the Medieval thinker, employed the language of right, he was not inventing the idea out of the blue; Christian thinkers (or Church Fathers) who were teaching and writing in the first 500 years were already using that sort of idea. The idea of natural right was unmistakably present in the work of John Chrysostom (347-407) , Ambrose of Milan (337-397) and Basil of Caesarea (329/330-379).

Based on the principle of correlative, a right theorist may accept that if there is natural right then it must imply that there is natural duty. But the difference between a right theorist and right order theorist goes deeper. And here is the difference: Does a person have inherent worth for which she/he possess an inherent right or is right conferred to a person by an entity/someone? Nick argues for the former, and this is something he will go on to develop in the following chapters. But if his argument stands, then the right order theorists argument that rights are conferred by state/law/contract etc, and it is not something that a person possesses as if it's an inherent property will be challenged.

I think Nick was convincing enough in his argument that the idea of subjective/natural right was already in use much before Ockham and others. Yet whether a right order theorists can still accept the idea of inherent right and remain a right order theorist is possible or not is something Nick will try to argue in the following chapters. And whether he is successful or not, the readers will have to wait.

Introduction of Wolterstorff's Justice: Rights and Wrongs

Besides other posts, I am going to be blogging about Justice: Rights and Wrongs, written by philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale University. This is not a book review, but a summary of each chapter. I have read the book twice, and this is my third reading of the book. Most of the books I have read do not get the privilege of being read twice, let alone thrice. C S Lewis Mere Christianity, Vinoth Ramachandra's God's That Fail  and Michael Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Things to do? are the only three books I have read twice, as far as I could remember right now. The Bible and Wolterstorff's book Justice are going to be the only two books I would have read thrice or more! Since this is my third reading, I want to believe that I have understood him well.

The book has 17 chapters, besides Preface and Introduction in the beginning and Epilogue at the end. So it's as if it has 20 chapters. This post will summarise Preface and Introduction together.

Nick begins to engage with the concept of justice after two life-changing events. The first one is on Apartheid South Africa in 1976, where he witnessed the Afrikaners denying justice to the 'blacks' and 'coloured' people. The second event in on Palestinian  issue in 1978, where he heard the Palestinians speak out against injustice meted out to them. These events energised him to speak out against injustice like no other events before. 

Nick is explicit that he is a Christian and his account of justice is a theistic account. Even so, his account of justice is based on inherent right that an individual possesses. He begins in the Introduction by stating that there are oppositions to the concept of rights as justice from within and outside the religious tradition he comes from. Some say that ethics of care is more appropriate; others argue against right-talks due to political and social reasons. Some say that the idea of right as justice gives rise to individualistic way of thinking and therefore it should be discouraged. Right-proponents are alleged to have said, 'this is my right; that is my right etc.' and focus so much on individual right, and thus fail to talk about care, responsibility, duty, obligation etc. Nick argues that it is one thing to care, but another thing to be cared; it is one thing to fail to do one's moral duty and thus wrong a person, but another thing to be a victim and be wronged. The language of care, duty, obligation etc cannot accommodate the story of the victim, of the one being wronged. Thus, doing away with the language of rights is to entail doing away with the story of the victim, and this is something we cannot afford. Theory of justice requires language and concept of rights, and we cannot do away with rights based concept of justice. This is Nick's defence of rights based idea of justice. 

Nick says that there are two primary conceptions of justice in the western tradition: justice as right order and the concept of justice based on inherent rights. Former is Plato's view and those who agree with him and the latter is his view and those who have argued something similar to his view even earlier. Aristotle's concept of justice as equality is possibly the third conception. Nick is going to argue for the concept of justice based on inherent right. But he will also be rejecting what proponents of justice as right order say about rights based justice which is that rights based idea of justice emerged much later. Nick will argue  that right-theorists position emerged much before Medieval period and therefore is not of recent origin and that this concept does not necessarily give rise to excessive individualism.