Thesis: Does Charity Begin at Home?
Stauffer Library, Queen's University, Canada (AWM) |
In September 2012, I completed my master's in philosophy at Queen's University, supervised by Professor Christine Sypnowich.
I
argued that two different ethical approaches to global poverty lead to
the same solution: both neo-Kantianism and Peter Singer's
consequentialism require us to create a global wealth transfer
mechanism/global state.
Though this problem still
fascinates me, in the intervening years, my views have evolved: I am no
longer sure that Kant can be read in this way, particularly with regard to the risk of a global "soulless despotism." An the full text is available here; the abstract is below.
Abstract
In
“Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer urges citizens of
wealthy countries to make immense personal sacrifices in order to assist
the poor overseas. Though Singer has moderated his view in recent
years and now supports widespread tithing, the motivation remains the
same. By contrast, Immanuel Kant contends that the first right of
humanity is freedom and that the purpose of a political order is to
unite people into a rightful condition. As part of this, taxes should
be imposed in order to support the domestic poor—an obligation that does
not extend across borders.
Although their underlying
assumptions are quite different, Singer and Kant’s concerns can both be
addressed by a common solution: the creation of a global tax to support
the poor, implemented by a global state. Such an arrangement would
permit substantial coordinated flows of aid to the needy (meeting
Singer’s utilitarian concerns) while also ensuring that all people of
the world are in a rightful condition with each other, thereby providing
the justification for global social assistance (respecting Kantian
deontology.) This solution requires expanding Singer’s proposals and a
revisionist reading of Kant that dismisses his arguments against the
creation of a global state. (Rawls’ support for a world of distinct
states that support each other can also be dismissed, as his approach
does not sufficiently connect political structures with personal duty,
as Singer and Kant both do.)
Though the final form of
the solution is largely the same, Kant’s framework is superior: while
Singer cannot eliminate the danger of becoming overwhelmed by duty,
Kant’s focus on individual autonomy can guard against this.