One World

1. Globalization Demands a Global Ethic Beyond National Borders

The thesis of this book is that how well we come through the era of globalization (perhaps whether we come through it at all) will depend on how we respond ethically to the idea that we live in one world.

Interconnectedness is undeniable. Events like the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the global impact of greenhouse gas emissions demonstrate that actions in one part of the world profoundly affect others. No nation, however powerful, is isolated. This interconnectedness necessitates a shift in our ethical thinking from purely national interests to a global perspective.

Traditional ethics are insufficient. Our current ethical frameworks, often rooted in the idea of sovereign nation-states, struggle to address global challenges. Philosophers like John Rawls, in his influential A Theory of Justice, focused solely on justice within a single society, neglecting the vast injustices between nations. This nationalistic bias in ethical theory is increasingly untenable.

A new ethic is emerging. The technological advancements that enable globalization also create the material basis for a new, global ethic. Just as ethics evolved from tribal to national levels as communities expanded, the global audience created by modern communication fosters a need to justify our actions to the entire world. This provides a foundation for an ethic that serves the interests of all inhabitants of the planet.

2. Climate Change Reveals Our Shared Vulnerability and Unequal Responsibility

There can be no clearer illustration of the need for human beings to act globally than the issues raised by the impact of human activity on our atmosphere.

The atmosphere is a shared sink. Human activities, particularly burning fossil fuels, are altering the global climate, leading to rising temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events. These changes disproportionately harm the world's poorest populations, who are least equipped to adapt. This shared vulnerability highlights the need for collective action.

Historical emissions create unequal burdens. Rich nations, especially the United States, have contributed the vast majority of historical greenhouse gas emissions. Applying a "polluter pays" principle suggests these nations bear the primary responsibility for addressing climate change. Even on a per capita basis, rich nations emit far more than poor ones.

Fairness requires equitable solutions. Principles of fairness, whether historical or based on equal per capita shares of the atmosphere's capacity, indicate that rich nations must drastically reduce their emissions. Mechanisms like global emissions trading, based on equal per capita entitlements, could facilitate this transition while benefiting developing nations by providing them with valuable assets to sell.

3. Economic Globalization Prioritizes Trade Over Other Crucial Values

The Misuse of the Product/Process Distinction... is crucial to understanding the impact of WTO rules in many areas.

The WTO's controversial role. The World Trade Organization, a key institution of economic globalization, is widely criticized for prioritizing free trade above other values like environmental protection, animal welfare, and human rights. Its dispute resolution panels have often struck down national laws aimed at protecting these values if they are deemed barriers to trade.

The flawed product/process rule. The WTO's reliance on distinguishing between a product's inherent nature and the process by which it was made is ethically problematic. This rule prevents countries from banning imports based on how they were produced, even if the production methods involve severe environmental damage, animal cruelty, or human rights abuses. This effectively gives commercial interests precedence.

Erosion of national sovereignty. While formally based on agreements between sovereign states, WTO membership practically limits national autonomy. The pressure to remain in the global trading system makes it difficult for nations to enact policies that conflict with WTO rules, even if those policies reflect the democratic will and values of their citizens.

4. State Sovereignty is Not Absolute; There is a Duty to Protect

Support for an effective universal prohibition on genocide and crimes against humanity shows more clearly than any other issue how our conception of the sovereign rights of states has changed over the past  years.

Atrocities demand intervention. The horrific genocides and crimes against humanity of the past century demonstrate that the traditional idea of absolute state sovereignty, where a government can do as it pleases within its borders, is morally untenable. There are acts so heinous that they strip a regime of its right to non-interference.

The responsibility to protect. A growing consensus suggests that sovereignty implies a state's responsibility to protect its people. When a state is unwilling or unable to do so, this responsibility shifts to the international community. Criteria for intervention include large-scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing, whether deliberate or due to state failure.

Legitimacy matters. The democratic view of sovereignty posits that a government's legitimacy stems from the will of its people. Regimes that seize and maintain power through force and repression lack this legitimacy and should not be shielded by the principle of non-intervention when committing atrocities.

5. International Law and Institutions Are Evolving Towards Global Justice

Thus the world has, for the first time, a permanent international body enforcing international criminal law.

From Nuremberg to the ICC. The prosecution of Nazi leaders at Nuremberg established the concept of international criminal responsibility. Subsequent tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), signify a move towards a global legal system where individuals can be held accountable for genocide and crimes against humanity, regardless of their official position.

Universal jurisdiction is gaining ground. The idea that any state can prosecute individuals for the most serious international crimes, regardless of where the crime occurred or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim, is gaining traction. Cases like Pinochet and the Rwandan trials in Belgium illustrate this evolving principle, though challenges remain.

The UN's evolving role. While the UN Charter initially emphasized non-intervention, the Security Council has increasingly interpreted threats to peace broadly to justify intervention in internal conflicts involving mass atrocities. This, along with the establishment of the ICC and the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, indicates a shift towards the UN as a potential enforcer of global justice.

6. National Partiality Cannot Justify Indifference to Absolute Poverty

The distance between these amounts symbolizes the way in which, for many people, the circle of concern for others stops at the boundaries of their own nation—if it even extends that far.

The stark reality of global inequality. The vast disparity between the resources available to citizens in rich nations (like the generous donations after 9/11) and the desperate poverty faced by billions elsewhere highlights a profound ethical disconnect. While we readily help compatriots, our concern often diminishes sharply across national borders, even when needs are far greater.

Justifying partiality is difficult. While partiality towards family and friends can be justified from an impartial perspective (e.g., for promoting well-being and relationships), extending this strong partiality to all compatriots simply because they share a nationality is ethically questionable. Arguments based on shared kinship, reciprocity, or imagined community struggle to justify neglecting those in absolute need elsewhere.

Absolute poverty overrides relative concerns. Even if there are reasons to prioritize reducing inequality within one's own society, these reasons are outweighed by the urgency of alleviating absolute poverty. Dying from preventable causes due to lack of food, water, or basic healthcare is a suffering that is not merely relative to others' wealth; it is a fundamental deprivation that demands a response.

7. We Have a Strong Moral Obligation to Aid the Global Poor

whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance.

The ethical challenge is clear. Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and Peter Unger argue that keeping wealth beyond what is needed for a decent life is morally wrong when others are suffering and dying from lack of basic necessities. The ability to save a life at minimal cost creates a strong moral imperative.

The "Bugatti" analogy. Just as it would be gravely wrong for someone to let a child die to save a valuable car, it is wrong for affluent individuals to spend lavishly on luxuries while failing to donate to effective organizations that can save lives and alleviate suffering for a relatively small amount of money. The scale of need means this obligation is substantial.

A minimum standard of giving. While the full extent of our obligation may be debated, a widely advocated minimum is for affluent individuals to contribute a percentage of their income to aid organizations. Even a modest 1% of annual income from those who can afford it could significantly move towards achieving global development goals and eliminating the worst forms of poverty.

8. Building a Better World Requires More Just Global Governance

To rush into world federalism would be too risky, but we could accept the diminishing significance of national boundaries and take a pragmatic, step-by-step approach to greater global governance.

Global problems need global solutions. Issues like climate change, pandemics, economic instability, and mass atrocities cannot be effectively addressed by nation-states acting alone. The increasing interconnectedness of the world necessitates stronger institutions for global decision-making and cooperation.

Reforming existing institutions. Current global bodies like the UN and WTO are often criticized for being undemocratic, inefficient, or dominated by powerful states. To be effective and legitimate, these institutions need reform, potentially moving towards more representative structures, like a World Assembly based on population, and ensuring accountability.

A step-by-step approach. While full world government may be a distant and potentially risky prospect, a pragmatic approach involves strengthening global governance incrementally in specific areas. Developing and enforcing global standards for environment, labor, and human rights, and ensuring resources are directed to where they are most needed, are crucial steps towards a more just and ethical world community.

Last updated: May 24, 2025