Global Inequalities? So what?

The need to survive is a combination of different elements and characteristics, such as hope, ambition and courage to continue existing. Although the endurance to sustain life can be very difficult to maintain if one lacks the calories, proteins, vitamins, and minerals needed to achieve the essential balance between body and mind. Many individuals are in this situation as a result of global inequalities, caused by the wealthier sector of our global society. Global inequalities is a term that encompasses other subdivisions of this form; world hunger, poverty and child labor. This is an issue that should be looked at and analyzed in a more profound matter, a philosophical perspective would suffice.  As catalysts of global inequalities do we as a society have a moral duty to address this issue and it consequent results, if so do we address them to the best of our ability?

One subdivision of global inequalities is poverty which often triggers subsequent calamities such as world hunger and child labor. Poverty can be divided into two categories: absolute poverty and relative poverty. The poverty we are familiar with “in industrialized nations is relative poverty – meaning that some citizens are poor, relative to the wealth enjoyed by their neighbors”, (Singer, 392). The one that would seem to matter most though is absolute poverty. This is poverty at the very absolute level, “life at the very margin of existence”, (Singer, 392). At this point one realizes that we in fact might have a moral duty, an obligation to assist those in need, especially if we as the wealthier sector are often the cause for this poverty. If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening such as poverty than we ought to do it, although this only applies “when nothing comparably significant is at stake”, (Singer, 393). This is where the problem begins people only want to help those in need if it will not affect their personal situation, therefore poverty cannot be exterminated and consequently neither can world hunger.

To further discuss world hunger a stem off of poverty and our responsibility for it, the second philosopher that will be introduced is Robert N. Van Wyk. Van Wyk argues that “wealthy countries may in fact owe reparations to some extent to poorer countries and that we as individuals have a duty to do our fair share to diminish hunger and distress (although their personal ideals may lead them to do more than their fair share)”, (399). As individuals we should try to help achieve the decrease of world hunger, there is one problem though, there is only so much an individual can do. For example if I contribute enough money to provide one child with a meal, there is still another child who is hungry. This situation presents more problems because wouldn’t this then mean that since I have a duty to feed one child, I also have a duty to feed the second, third and fourth child? Helping others can only be done to a certain extent, it is impossible to help every single person because to do so people would have to give up their luxuries and wealth, and there will never be a consensus to do so. Secondly it is argued that “population growth is outstripping food production and also leading both to the depletion of the world’s natural resources and the pollution of the environment”, (Van Wyk, 400). What this means is that if every single person was to be fed and saved, the more misery there would be in the long run. This misery would be due to the fact that all the people being saved would reproduce therefore increasing population and with an increase of population there is an increase for food demand. These food demands would of course not be met making it even more difficult to achieve at least some minimal balance between relative and absolute hunger. Having said this it is safe to assume that our modern society would rather put aside some of their moral concerns about others in order to achieve success and survival themselves.

Survival is almost a reflexive action we as humans perform particularly if we are under poverty and hunger constraints. To be under these two terrible constraints is often what originates child labor. This kind of lucrative labor is mainly beneficial to the corporations or contractors in third world countries such as China and Indonesia. Most of the name brand shoes, shirts and clothes we buy here in America are made in these third world countries, where their workers which most of them can be women and underage children get paid what are often referred to as “starvation wages” and “slave wages”. Now at first glance one might right away object to these conditions and demand that corporations be more sentient towards their employees. This objection would be most reasonable considering that we as the most affluent sector are mostly the ones whom induce these events. This is where philosopher Ian Maitland differs, he argues for the defense of International “sweatshops” (corporations). To support his argument he provides four reasons as to why wages in developing countries or third world countries are morally permissible.

1.      Home –country standards: Even though it seems simple to just go ahead and pay employees higher wages the effects of this action outweighs it perceived benevolence, as it seems to be described by Maitland. If home-country wages by corporations were consistent throughout the whole globe, “they would disrupt the local labor market with artificially high wages that bore no relation to the local standard or cost of living”, (Maitland, 408).

2.      “Living Wage” standard: It has been suggested that corporations should pay their employees wages that “allow the worker to live in dignity as a human being”, (Maitland, 408). This is also referred to as a “living wage”. Now some individuals like De George say that it would be better to provide no job at all then pay less that a living wage. This is where Maitland also differs. He believes it is morally permissible to pay this workers market wages because whether this money a lot or not, it still better than nothing. (So corporations help people in need?)

3.      Donaldson’s Test: Donaldson proposes a test to determine when standards are being no longer ethical. He proposes that the practice is “only permissible if and only if the members of the home country would, under conditions of economic development similar to those of the host country, regard the practice as permissible”, (Maitland, 408). Right away we can see how this approach might be non- efficient as Maitland suggests. This approach contains a major weakness within an ethical code because it sets up managers of corporations for confusion who actually want to act ethically and it provides loopholes for those who do not want to.

4.      Classical liberal standard: According to this standard this would set a wage that is “freely” chosen by informed workers. Well this method also fails because in developing countries where these corporations are at employees might not even have a school education. Also “with massive unemployment, market forces in developing countries drive the unemployed to the jobs they are lucky to land, regardless of safety”, or well informed (Maitland, 408). Any wage that would be freely chosen by the workers may be higher than their local wages and we would not want to disrupt their local economy, would we?

From Ian Maitland’s philosophical point of view it seems that away from deviating from ethical standards corporations are within moral limits and even save people from being unemployed, poverty and in hunger.

            Not only do corporations save people from unemployment but “to downsize a corporation would be morally wrong”, (Orlando, 415). In fact to downsize a corporation would put hardworking employees to go through the emotional and financial hardships of losing their job, according to John Orlando, our last philosopher mentioned. John Orlando argues that it is wrong to close or downsize whole corporations in order to benefit a few shareholders while injuring a greater number of people. “Consider the case where a CEO downsizes under the knowledge that mere news of these layoffs will be greeted favorably by the stock market, and thus cause stock prices to rise…as opposed to the case where downsizing will improve benefits by increasing productivity. Here the very act that harms the workers- loss of their job –itself produces the benefit to shareholders”, (Orlando, 420).  John Orlando even goes on to say that for corporations to downsize would be like using these employees for their own benefits; statement that seems to be a logical fallacy because corporations use individuals as means to their ends regardless of downsizing.

            After having seen different philosophical points of view, two questions might still be in your head: So do we have a moral responsibility to try and decrease global inequalities and if so, do we actually do enough? Well yes, we do have amoral responsibility and yes we actually do enough. We do because in the first place we are the ones that put children to work, we are the ones that contribute to the existence of third world countries and how do we do this, we do it because we are the ones that support the business of corporations by being consumers. Secondly we do, do enough, we do what we can within our limited power; limited power because it is hard to help individuals that are being exploited when their own country allows it for their own benefit. If the home country does not care enough for its citizens then I believe that when a single individual contributes to donations in order to provide a meal for a poor kid that might be starving, he/she is doing in enough. This sounds terrible and it is terrible but it is the reality. If we try to help lessen global inequalities we must realized that its eradication will never be achieved, this is the crude world we are part of existence with. It will not be eradicated because it is due to these workers that we can have such a high standard of living and such affordable prizes to items of name brands (at least speaking within American and European standards).  Global inequalities and the poor people that represent it can be somewhat compared to immigrants which can also be part of global inequalities. Let me explain it is because of immigrant workers that we here in America get the opportunity to buy food specially vegetables and fruits for considerable cheaper prices than in other countries. It is because we pay these immigrant low wages that we can enjoy food at an accessible price, while companies still make profit. Global inequality is a concept interdependent of three subjects; people in need, corporations and consumers.

            To conclude this difficult matter that seems to have no concrete answer I want to leave you with some important thoughts to consider. First of all when do we actually sit down and think about the real important catastrophes that are happening around the world? Instead of worrying about trivial matters like how we could not buy the nice pair of shoes we saw at the mall today. Is it right for a child to lose her/ his innocence and childhood in order to work and provide a meager amount of money to their family, for a wage almost insignificant, from which corporations make huge profits, yet they do not feel remorse for the situations of their employees. If you cannot help personally this injustices of life and social dynamics at least be aware of these situations. Just because you are not aware of them does not mean they do not exist. One should be able to look beyond our context, because our context does not represent the whole world. We must be able possessors of sociological imagination (enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals) which allows us to place ourselves in the situations of others, of course it will never be the same to write a paper on it and to actually experience these global inequalities.