One World Ethics

Singer's One World, The Ethics of Globalization

By John Taylor; 2007 August 09

"Behold, these are the wicked. Being always at ease, they increase in riches." (Ps 73:12)

I have already reviewed it, but today I want to go over some points missed in what I think is one of the most important books of the past decade, Peter Singer's "One World, The Ethics of Globalization." It always helps to finish reading a book you review, and this I have almost completely done now. One World addresses a thesis almost universally ignored by professional ethicists everywhere: how does looking at the humanity as one race living in one planet change our ethical calculations? Answer: a great deal. It turns everything upside down. Future generations will scarce believe that ethics, of all disciplines, could have ignored this issue so long and so late in the game. Shame on the moralist of today!

As mentioned, Singer starts off with the easiest target, national governments. The idea of absolute state sovereignty was established at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and continues unchanged right down to the present climate fiasco. Its crowning glory and defining moment came at the first Earth Summit when the elder Bush declared that, "The American lifestyle is not up for negotiation." Then, Romano Prodi, of the EEC responded to this shocking `first things first' ethical stance by saying that "if one wants to be a world leader, one must know how to look after the entire earth and not only American industry." Singer writes,

"This blunt condemnation of the approach to the duties of a national leader taken by -- at least -- the last three American presidents forces us to consider a fundamental ethical issue. To what extent should political leaders see their role narrowly, in terms of promoting the interests of their citizens, and to what extent should they be concerned with the welfare of people everywhere?" (Peter Singer, One World, The Ethics of Globalization, 3)

This question I have pulled out my hair over and over again during the year or two it has taken to get through this book. At one point I cited Baha'u'llah's advice to democratic parliamentarians in the Tablet to Queen Victoria, which in no uncertain terms suggests the latter, that they do not represent a narrow constituency but must look always at the welfare of people everywhere. Later I latched on to Aristotle's idea of a polity, a happy mixture of the best elements of several forms of government. This aspect of Britain's parliamentary monarchy Baha'u'llah praised in the Tablet mentioned above. A polity is government by leaders concerned with the whole, not the parts, the benefit of the largest unity, not their own interest or that of anything less than the whole. The only possible polity in this day and age, of course, is world polity. This is why lesser polities have sprung horns on their heads and carry a flaming pitchfork.

Singer stays hung up on nationalist governments for most of the book until at last he comes to the nub, the power punch that justified my sticking with One World to the end. Under the heading "An Ethical challenge," Singer throws down the gauntlet:

"If America's leaders continue to give only the most trifling attention to the needs of everyone except Americans (and the leaders of other rich nations continue to do only a little better) what should the citizens of those rich countries do? We are not powerless to act on our own. We can take practical steps to expand our concern across national boundaries by supporting organizations working to aid those in need, wherever they may be. But how much should we give?" (Singer, One World, 185)

That is a very good question. How much of our income, as individuals, should we give to help out the poor? That is just the kind of thing that ethicists could spend their time and justify their salaries settling upon. When you and I get our paycheck and are deciding our expenditures, exactly how much should we, ethically speaking, budget for charity? How much do you think Singer will suggest we budget to end starvation and unnecessary poverty in the world? A lot or a little? I think you will be surprised. I will reserve talking about his answer until next time.

Meanwhile, Singer does not jump right to the individual, he makes a stopover at the supposed moral conscience of humankind, religion. I must say though that although I have been severe on ethicists in this essay, Singer is on the whole pretty soft on his colleagues. On religion, though, he comes down like a ton of bricks, offering blanket condemnations. Okay, not all religions, he singles out for his magnifying glass the Catholic Church,

"More than 700 years ago Thomas Aquinas, later canonized by the Catholic Church, faced up to this question without flinching. Material goods are, he wrote, provided for the satisfaction of human needs and should not be divided in a way that hinders that goal. From this he drew the logical conclusion: `whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance.' Although Thomas Aquinas has had a major influence on the thinking of the Roman Catholic Church -- to such an extent that "Thomism" has been described as the official philosophy of the Church -- this particular aspect of his teachings is not one that the Church has chosen to emphasize. But how exactly we are to justify keeping what we have in `superabundance' when others are starving is not easy to say." (Singer, One World, 185-186)

Not that Singer is unfair here. It is true that religious groups in our time are almost as irresponsible as governments, and often more violent. And the Catholic Church in particular has held on to its wealth tenaciously. Baha'u'llah Himself suggested that they sell their "superabundance" and give the money to the poor, as not only Aquinas but also Jesus Christ Himself had commanded.

"O Supreme Pontiff! Incline thine ear unto that which the Fashioner of mouldering bones counselleth thee, as voiced by Him Who is His Most Great Name. Sell all the embellished ornaments thou dost possess, and expend them in the path of God, Who causeth the night to return upon the day, and the day to return upon the night. Abandon thy kingdom unto the kings, and emerge from thy habitation, with thy face set towards the Kingdom, and, detached from the world, then speak forth the praises of thy Lord betwixt earth and heaven." (Baha'u'llah, Proclamation, 85, Summons, 61)