Kant and Global Distributive Justice

74 Pages·2020·2.355 MB·English

by  Sylvie Loriaux

L
O
This Element argues that although Kant’s political thought R
IA
does not tackle issues of global poverty and inequality head U
X
on, it nonetheless offers important conceptual and normative
resources to think of our global socioeconomic duties. It delves
into the Kantian duty to enter a rightful condition beyond the
state and shows that a proper understanding of this duty not The Philosophy of
only leads us to acknowledge a duty of right to assist states
Immanuel Kant
that are unable to fulfil the core functions of a state, but also
provides valuable hints at what just transnational trade relations
and a just regulation of immigration should look like.
K Kant and Global
a
n
t
a
n
d
G Distributive
lo
b
a
l D
ist Justice
r
ib
u
t
iv
e
J
About the Series Series Editors u
s
t
The Elements series on The Philosophy Desmond Hogan ic
e
of Immanuel Kant provides an extensive Princeton
overview of Kant’s philosophy and University Sylvie Loriaux
its impact upon philosophy and Howard Williams
philosophers. Distinguished Kant University of Cardiff
specialists provide an up to date summary Allen Wood sserP
y
of the results of current research in their Indiana tisre
fields and give their own take on what University vinU
they believe are the most significant e
g
d
debates influencing research, drawing irb
m
original conclusions. aC
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
4
3
8
8
7
6
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
Cover image: Grafissimo/Getty //:sp IISSSSNN 22359174--93486214 ((opnrilnint)e)
tth
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
4
3
8
8
7
6
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
ElementsinthePhilosophyofImmanuelKant
editedby
DesmondHogan
PrincetonUniversity
HowardWilliams
UniversityofCardiff
AllenWood
IndianaUniversity
KANT AND GLOBAL
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Sylvie Loriaux
Laval University, Canada
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
4
3
8
8
7
6
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
UniversityPrintingHouse,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,
NewDelhi–110025,India
79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108729062
DOI:10.1017/9781108678834
©SylvieLoriaux2020
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2020
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN978-1-108-72906-2Paperback
ISSN2397-9461(online)
ISSN2514-3824(print)
sse CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
rP URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication
y
tisrev anddoesnotguaranteethaactcaunraytecoonrteapntproonpsruiacthe.websitesis,orwillremain,
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
4
3
8
8
7
6
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
Kant and Global Distributive Justice
ElementsinthePhilosophyofImmanuelKant
DOI:10.1017/9781108678834
Firstpublishedonline:November2020
SylvieLoriaux
LavalUniversity,Canada
Authorforcorrespondence:SylvieLoriaux,[email protected]
Abstract:ThisElementarguesthatalthoughKant’spoliticalthought
doesnottackleissuesofglobalpovertyandinequalityheadon,it
nonethelessoffersimportantconceptualandnormativeresourcesto
thinkofourglobalsocioeconomicduties.ItdelvesintotheKantianduty
toenterarightfulconditionbeyondthestateandshowsthataproper
understandingofthisdutynotonlyleadsustoacknowledgeadutyof
righttoassiststatesthatareunabletofulfilthecorefunctionsofastate,
butalsoprovidesvaluablehintsatwhatjusttransnationaltrade
relationsandajustregulationofimmigrationshouldlooklike.
Keywords:ImmanuelKant,beneficence,equalityofopportunity,rightful
condition,globalpovertyandinequality
©SylvieLoriaux2020
ISBNs:9781108729062(PB),9781108678834(OC)
ISSNs:2397-9461(online),2514-3824(print)
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
4
3
8
8
7
6
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 ADutyofBeneficencetoHelpPeopleinNeed 4
3 PovertyandInequalityasIssuesofDomestic Justice 18
4 JusticeintheFaceofGlobalPovertyandInequality 37
5 Conclusion 57
References 61
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
4
3
8
8
7
6
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
KantandGlobalDistributiveJustice 1
1Introduction
To talk about global distributive justice today is, above all, to talk about two
mainquestions.Thefirstquestionrelatestothenatureofourdistributiveduties
onaglobalscale.Canourdistributivedutiestowardtheglobalpoorproperlybe
describedasdutiesofbeneficence,orshouldtheyalsobeconsidereddutiesof
justice? This question is not merely conceptual, but is also likely to have
significant normative implications. Duties of justice are indeed broadly
assumedtobemorestringentthandutiesofbeneficence–theyareinparticular
regardedasenjoyingapriorityandanenforceabilitythatdutiesofbeneficence
lack. The second question relates to the extent of our distributive duties on
a global scale. Even if we admit that global poverty is not simply a matter of
beneficence,butalsoofjustice,thisdoesnotyetsolvethequestionastohowfar
ourdutiesofjusticeextendonaglobalscale.Wouldsocioeconomicjusticebe
realized in the world if all inhabitants of the planet had enough to lead
a minimally decent life (i.e., if absolute poverty were eradicated) or does it
alsorequireareductionofthosesocioeconomicinequalitiesthatpersistabove
thislevelofsufficiency(i.e.,areductionofrelativepoverty)?Itisworthnoting
inthisregardthatdutiesofdistributivejusticearetodaytypicallyidentifiedwith
duties ofegalitarian justice, onthe understanding that theydo notnecessarily
requirethatresourcesbedistributedinanequalway,butratherthatinequalities
ofresourcesbejustified.
These questions are obviously absent from Kant’s political thought. At the
domestic level, the issue of socioeconomic inequality is addressed only to
specify that the principle of ‘equality with every other as a subject’ requires
sserP the implementation of a certain form of equality of opportunity, but is also
ytisre compatible with the greatest inequality in wealth (TP 8: 291–4).1 As for the
vin issueofabsolutepovertyrelief,itfeaturesinonlyonepassageoftheDoctrineof
U
eg right,whichgrantsthestatetherighttolevytaxesinordertohelpitsmembers
d
irbm satisfy their most necessary needs (MM 6: 326), but which also seems to
a
C y contradict the view that Kant supports elsewhere, namely that right, unlike
b
en beneficence, has nothing to do with human need (MM 6: 230). At the inter-
iln
o d nationallevel,nomentionismadeof(re)distributionofresources,whichisnot
e
hsilb surprising when we consider that the contemporary reflection on global dis-
u
P 4 tributive justice has for a great part been triggered by the emergence of
3
88 unprecedentedinternationaleconomicinstitutions.
7
6
8
0
1
1
8
7
9/7 1 CitationsofGroundworkofThemetaphysicsofmorals(G),Onthecommonsaying:Thatmaybe
1
01 correctintheory,butitisofnouseinpractice(TP),Towardperpetualpeace(TPP),andThe
.01 metaphysicsofmorals(MM)(whichincludestheDoctrineofrightandtheDoctrineofvirtue)will
/g
ro betothetranslationsbyMaryJ.Gregor(1996).
.io
d
//:sp
tth
2 ThePhilosophyofImmanuelKant
Mustwe conclude thatglobal distributive justice hasno placein a Kantian
political theory? There are reasons to think otherwise, and this is what this
Elementwillstrivetoshow.Afirstthingtonoteisindeedthat,justlikethevast
majorityofcontemporaryglobaljusticethinkers,Kantinsists ontheideathat
ourglobaldutiesarenotmerelyamatterofphilanthropyorethics,butarealso
a matter of right or justice. And just like them, he attributes to right a certain
priorityandacertainforce.Tobeginwith,hemakesitclearthatanactioncan
hardly be called beneficent if it involves the violation of rights or if it is
performed against a background of deep socioeconomic injustices. He also
emphasizesthat,unlikedutiesofvirtue(amongwhichthedutyofbeneficence),
dutiesofrightaredutiesforwhichexternallawgivingandcoercionarepossible.
AsecondthingtonoteisthatthedutyofrightKantinsistsuponintheglobal
sphere is the duty to enter a rightful condition – a condition which he also
describes asa‘conditionofdistributive justice’ (MM6: 307).Tobe sure,the
expression‘distributivejustice’doesnot,forKant,connoteegalitariansocioec-
onomic concerns (as it does today), but refers to the presence of public laws
securing what belongs to each. Nevertheless, by affirming the existence of
adutyofrighttosubmittopubliclawsintheglobalsphere,Kantalsoaffirms
theexistenceofadutyofrighttoreformtheselawssoastoaccordthemwiththe
ideaoftheoriginalcontract,thatis,toensurethattheselawscouldpossiblybe
consentedtobyallthoseglobalactorsthataresubjecttothem.
ThisElementwillinsistonthesocioeconomicpotentialofthisdouble-faceted
duty of right. Its main objective will be to show that even if Kant’s political
thought does not tackle issues of global poverty and inequality head on, it
sse nonethelessoffersimportantconceptualandnormativeresourcestothinkofour
rP y global socioeconomic duties. More precisely, it will argue that Kant’s political
tisre thoughtoffers,first,theresourcestoacknowledge,besidesadutyofbeneficence
v
inU tohelppeopleinneed,adutyofrighttoassiststatesthatareunabletofulfilthe
e
g
dirb core functions of a state, and second, valuable hints at what just transnational
m
a traderelationsandajustregulationofimmigrationshouldlooklike.
C
yb e The argument will proceed in three steps. The first section will address the
n
iln question of global poverty on the basis of Kant’s conception of the duty of
o
deh beneficence.ItwillstartbyexplicatingthewayinwhichKantdefinesthisduty
silbu asadutyofpracticalloveandgroundsit,ontheonehand,intheimpossibilityof
P
4
3 universalizingthemaximofindifferencewithoutcontradiction,andontheother
8
8
7
6 hand,intheabsolutevalueofhumanityasanendinitself.Itwillthendelveinto
8
0
11 theforcesandweaknessesofanapproachtoglobalpovertywhichtakesKant’s
8
7
9/7 conceptionofthedutyofbeneficenceasitspointofdeparture.Itwillshowthat
1
0
1.0 helpingpeopleinneed,farfrombeingoptional,isforKantauniversalmoralduty,
1
/gro whichrestsontherecognitionofthegreatnessofeachhumanbeingandwhich
.io
d
//:sp
tth
KantandGlobalDistributiveJustice 3
has the potential to counter paternalistic abuses. As far as weaknesses are
concerned, particular attention will be paid to the fact that Kant conceives of
the duty of beneficence as a duty that is wide, non-enforceable, generative of
statusinequality,andespecially,onewhosefulfilmentpresupposesabaselineof
justice.Concerningthelatterpoint,Kantindeedmakestheimportantclaimthat
theinequalitiesofwealththatmakebeneficencebothpossibleandnecessaryare
‘forthemostpart’theresultoftheinjusticeofthegovernment(MM6:454).
Itisessentiallytotheelucidationofthisclaimthatthesecondsectionwillbe
devoted.Itsaimwillbetodetermineinwhichsensetheintroductionofwealth
inequalities bythegovernmentcanbeconsideredunjust.The Kantianideaof
theoriginalcontractwillbeofgreatimportanceinthisundertaking.Itisindeed
byexaminingwhatkindofpubliclawscouldnotpossiblybeconsentedtoby
free,equal,andindependentcitizensthattwoprinciplesofdomesticsocioeco-
nomicjusticewillemerge.Thefirstisaprincipleofformalequalityofoppor-
tunity, which demands that no subject be prevented by formal obstacles from
risinginthesocialhierarchybecauseoftheirsocialorigin.Thesecondprinciple
isaredistributiveprinciple,whichrequiresrichmembersofsocietytocontrib-
ute,throughredistributivetaxes,tomaintainingtheexistenceofthosemembers
of society who are unable to maintain themselves. The last subsection of
thesecondsectionwillmakethetransitionfromdomestictoglobaldistributive
justicebyraisingthequestionofthecircumstancesofdistributivejustice.Itwill
invokeKant’s‘postulateofpublicright’toshowthattheKantiancircumstances
ofdistributivejusticeobtainintheglobalsphereandenjoinus,first,toestablish
interstate and cosmopolitan public laws, and second, to continuously reform
sse theselawssoastoaccordthemwiththeideaoftheoriginalcontract.Thekey
rP y question will then be to determine whether or not this accord involves the
tisre recognitionofdutiesofrighttocombatcertainformsofpovertyandinequality
v
in
U intheglobalsphere.
e
g
dirb Thisquestionwillbeattheheartofthethirdandlastsection.Thissectionwill
m
a startbyclarifyingthesubject-matterofbothinterstateandcosmopolitanpublic
C
y
b e right and by examining the complex nature of the Kantian duty to enter
n
iln arightfulcondition,whichcomprisesbothaconservativeandanidealdimen-
o
deh sion. The notion of ‘provisional right’ will be mobilized to show that the
silbu absence of a global coercive power does not exempt global actors from the
P
4
3 dutytorespectexistingpubliclawsandtoreformtheselawssoastobringthem
8
8
7
6 into conformity with the idea of the original contract or with rational right.
8
0
11 Fulfillingthisdouble-faceteddutyis,onthecontrary,theonlywayforthemto
8
7
9
/7 demonstrate their willingness to enter a rightful condition beyond the state.
1
0
1.0 The secondpart ofthethirdsectionwill examine thesocioeconomic implica-
1
/gro tionsthatthepostulateofpublicrightmayhaveonaglobalscalebyaddressing
.io
d
//:sp
tth
4 ThePhilosophyofImmanuelKant
thefollowingtwoquestions:‘Canrichstatesbesaidtohaveadutyofrightto
relieve global poverty?’ and ‘Can a global principle of formal equality of
opportunity be invoked to condemn certain forms of global inequalities?’ It
willarguethatKantianstatescanberegardedashavingadutyofrighttoassist
thosestatesthatareunabletofulfilthecorefunctionsofastate.Itwillalsoargue
that Kant’s theory of cosmopolitan right offers valuable hints at what just
transnational trade relations and a just regulation of immigration should look
like. More specifically, it will show that it enjoins us, first, to fill the legal
loopholesleftbydomesticandinterstatepublicright;second,todeviseglobal
traderulesinsuchawaythattheydonotcontradicttherightsofallglobalactors
involved(suchasstates’capacitytodeterminethemselves);andthird,todevise
immigrationlawsinsuchawaythatnoinhabitantoftheearthisdeniedaccessto
inhabitable land. The conclusion will bring us back to the limitations of
abeneficence-basedapproachtoglobalpovertyandinequality,andwillexam-
inetowhatextentajustice-basedapproachisabletoovercomethem.
2ADutyofBeneficencetoHelpPeopleinNeed
ThatKantrecognizestheexistence ofamoraldutytoassistpeopleinneedis
beyondanydoubt.AsheclearlystatesinThemetaphysicsofmorals(1797),‘To
be beneficent, that is, to promote according to one’s means the happiness of
othersinneed,withouthopingforsomethinginreturn,iseveryone’sduty’(MM
6: 453), or already twenty-two years earlier in the Groundwork of The meta-
physicsofmorals(1785),‘Tobebeneficentwhereonecanisaduty’(G4:398).
sse Kantconceivesofthedutyofassistanceorthedutyofbeneficenceasoneof
rP y thethreeformsthatthemoreencompassingdutyoflovetootherhumanbeings
tisre can take, the other two forms being the duty of gratitude and the duty of
v
in
U sympathy(MM6:452).Thedutyoflovetootherhumanbeingsisnotlimited
e
g
dirb tosituations ofdistress, butcallseach ofusmore broadlyto promotetheend
m
a that all other human beings naturally pursue, namely their happiness. The
C
yb happinessorthewell-beingofothersisthusdescribedasanendthatisatthe
e
n
iln sametimeadutyforeveryone,thatis,asanendthateveryoneoughttoregard
o
d
e andtopromoteastheirownend(MM6:388;MM6:393).Asadutytoadoptan
h
silb end that is also a duty for each, the duty of love, and with it the duty of
u
P
43 beneficence,constituteswhatKantcallsa‘dutyofvirtue’(MM6:383).
8
8
76 Itisimportanttonoticetheactiveorpracticalcharacterofthedutyofloveto
8
0
11 otherhumanbeings.Thefactthatitimpliestheadoptionofanendandhencean
8
7
9/7 ‘internalactofthemind’(MM6:239)doesnotmeanthatitisapurelyinternal
1
0
1.0 duty.Inotherwords,thedutyoflovedoesnotsimplydemandthatwewishthe
1
/g happiness of others, which basically costs us nothing. The love that we are
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth