Customer Reviews

One World: The Ethics of Globalization (The Terry Lectures)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Peter Singer is arguably the most influential -- almost certainly the most controversial -- philosopher alive today. From the way he is treated in the press, one might expect this book to be nothing but a foaming-at-the-mouth radical manifesto, but instead I found a cogent, carefully argued inquiry into moral issues raised by globalization. Singer begins, as any good philosopher does, from premises that he thinks he can get most people to agree on: that no moral principle in itself justifies giving more of a limited resource to one person than to another; that we ought to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves; that we have an obligation to assist those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the direst poverty. From these premises, he carefully leads the reader to thoughtful conclusions, considering and responding to potential objections and modifying his own initial conclusions to provide a practical prescription for how one ought to act (the school of philosophy to which Singer belongs is known as "practical ethics").

In this brief book, Singer tackles 4 issues raised by globalization: how to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and global warming; whether the WTO and free trade make the world a better place or simply enrich the rich at the expense of the poor while undermining all other human values; when military intervention is justified to prevent or stop genocide or other crimes against humanity; and the scope of the Western world's obligations to the poor and less developed portions of the world. Singer has clearly done his homework, providing a short but extremely useful overview of each problem, often illustrated with telling facts (for example, annual US domestic spending on alcohol is $34 billion, compared to $14 billion spent annually by the US on foreign development aid).

Singer's conclusions are surprisingly moderate -- for example, while condemning the US for refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty, he recognizes that the Treaty itself would be more effective if *all* nations (not just the developed ones) had quotas (since the quotas of less developed nations would be greater than their output, leading to a stronger market for emissions trading). While concluding that the WTO is undemocratic and places free trade above all other values, he acknowledges that the charge that the poor are worse off under globalization is at least not proven. He takes a stand against moral relativism and concludes that insisting on universal respect for human rights is not a kind of cultural imperialism. At the same time, he recognizes that a legal justification for intervention (atrocities are being committed) is not the same as a moral justification (will intervention produce the best result, all things considered?). Perhaps most interesting, an issue that weaves its way through the entire book is the changing nature of state sovereignty and what it means for a government to be legitimate. I kept wishing that Singer would devote more space to this issue -- perhaps someday he will write a separate book on it (although it may be too theoretical for his practical nature).

"One World" is an exceptionally well-written and clearly argued book. You don't have to be a philosopher yourself to follow Singer; he uses the kind of moral reasoning we all have experience with and he makes his points in plain English. I can't say that I agree with all of his arguments, but he has given me a lot to think about, and I know that I will refer to this book again.

Set in the context of globalization both of trade and of the capacity to mount attacks on cultures/communities that you consider to be hostile, Singer examines a selection of key policy decisions and institutions from an ethical viewpoint. These include:
* The ethics of a political position that gives absolute priority to the perceived short-term interests of the citizens of one's own country (particularly issues of poverty and environmental protection) - mainly in the Chapters "One Atmosphere" and "One Community", and ending (in "A Better World?") with a brief discussion of issues and alternatives for a better solution to the governance of a single world;
* An ethical critique of the World Trade Organization's defence against four key charges - in the Chapter "One Economy";
* A similar critique of the arguments advanced by global corporations for trading with dictatorial regimes - also in the Chapter "One Economy"; and
* An examination of the basis of international law, in particular the ethical basis for military intervention in another country - in the Chapter "One Law".

A notable feature of the book is the wealth of factual detail that Singer brings to underpin his case. Further, he avoids the trap of mere utopianism by the rigour and practicality of his arguments, while insisting on the importance of the ethical dimension in resolving the issues.

The care with which he lays out his arguments will provide food for thought for both sides of the divide about globalization, while his use of ethics as a touchstone highlights the sad fact that few current global policies, including the Iraq intervention, are ethically defensible.

Clearly, the nations of the world are moving away from traditional sovereignty towards greater mutual dependency. That much is obvious. However, what shape this process will eventually take is not so obvious. In broad outline, Singer's book attempts to lay out the ethical foundations for a more just, humane, and sustainable global process. Of course, it's hard to argue with that, given so many present trends away from those laudable goals. On the other hand, it's certainly possible to take issue with Singer's consequentialist approach to these problems, as I'm sure ethicisists other than Singer will do. But that academic issue aside, the book's main value lies in the author's penetrating analysis of the WTO and its hypocritical foundations which he locates in the conflict between "process" and "product". The fact that the conflict is buried in the organization's misleadingly titled "10 Common Misunderstandings About the WTO" makes for an amusing irony. That section alone is worth the read. There are other less concentrated nuggets scattered throughout, including some shrewd and telling observations on the work of the renowned John Rawls.

My reservation is with the book's safely liberal framework. When all is said and done, Singer's prescriptions raise no issues beyond those of market reforms (reform of WTO), greater world democracy, and more generous foreign aid. In short, there is nothing there that the liberal wing of the Democratic party could not at least pay lip service to. Nowhere does his work suggest that the barriers confronting a more humane and sustainable planet are structural and non-negotiable, that wealth and power may have to be seriously redistributed, or that the problems may be more systemic than piece-meal. I don't fault him for not writing a work on political economy where these issues could be thematically addressed; I do fault the book overall for structuring its discussion around these tacit and constricting assumptions. For a thinker who has fearlessly exposed himself to insult and ridicule by championing the rights of all of Earth's creatures, I know this is a sincere work. Still, I have the impression that One World could have been written by a hundred ethicists much less distinguished than the good professor. All in all, the book is hardly an extention of his other ground-breaking work, and, in that sense, amounts to a disappointment. For those wishing a more challenging ethical approach to globalization from a philosopher of similar stature, check out Ted Honderich's After the Terror.

Singer does an excellent job laying down what is wrong and what is right about our global economic bodies.

Most enlightening for me was Singer's treatment of the WTO. He points out our need for it in regulating international trade and then attacks its major flaw, which is the WTO's interpretation of its charter. This interpretation allows countries to discriminate against imports based on the quality of the product but not on the nature of the process by which they are made. Thus a country cannot levy tarrifs or ban an import if it's production does not comply with said country's ethical standards.

Perhaps most importantly Singer lays down a solid philosophical/ethical framework to follow when deciding how to shape our world bodies in the future.

Given the current crisis of the U.S. Leviathan run amok, this book should be required reading for every U.S. citizen. "One World" is a concise and powerful statement of ethical problems and principles involved in globalization, based on a series of lectures Singer delivered at Yale, where he teaches. He opens with a damning critique of the influential John Rawls, pointing out that Rawls' principles are not meant to apply to the world, but only within nation-states. Singer's rejection of this truncated moral myopia is the starting point for his analysis.

There are four topical chapters: "One Atmosphere," dealing with global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, "One Economy," dealing with the World Trade Organization, "One Law," dealing with international law and including the issue of humanitarian military intervention, and "One Community," dealing with world poverty and economic assistance.

Singer is a utilitarian and a consequentialist. His ethical philosophy is simple and clear, and is easily understood by just about anybody. One of the central points of this book is that the U.S. is a rogue nation. Right-wingers like to accuse critics of U.S. policy of moral relativism, but Singer makes it crystal clear that it is actually the U.S. unilateralists who fail to apply the same moral criteria to the U.S. that they apply to everyone else. Their position reduces to "might makes right." Of course they would have to resort to a completely different sort of argument if the U.S. was not powerful enough to do whatever it wants and get away with it (for now).

Singer, ever practical, proposes a transitional step toward a federal world government. This would involve turning the U.N. General Assembly into a World Assembly of democratically elected delegations for every country, proportional to their population. The catch, during the transition, would be that if a country did not allow the U.N. to conduct free and open elections to the Assembly, then that country would only be allowed 1 representative. Most people today consider world government to be either a bad idea, or utopian, if not both. It seems clear to me that many things in the world today would have seemed utopian not so long ago, and that world government will seem like common sense in the future, if we manage to pass through the Scylla and Charybdis of nuclear war and environmental crisis.

Who would ever think of making a comparison between the hijacked planes slamming into the WTC and the day-to-day pollution created by SUV exhausts? Yet, this is the starting point of Singer's investigation into the ethics of globalization. For Singer they describe important aspects of globalization. He argues that despite the trauma created by 9/11 for people in the US, it was a short, sharp, shocking event killing fewer people than children dying each day around the world from poverty and disease. In the longer term it also pales against the ongoing destruction of our ecosystem threatening humanity's survival as a consequence of our rich lifestyle.

Many books examine the different aspects of "globalization", from the pro- and the anti- perspectives to everything in between. While Singer does not question the realities of an increasingly integrated world, he argues the case for serious scrutiny of the motives underlying the current state of affairs. He urges an overhaul of the principles and standards of globalization politics so that everybody might benefit from it. He is aware of the difficulties in achieving the ideal, and outlines the obstacles candidly. He pleads the case of the 1.2 billion people who live in abject poverty. Their aspirations for a better lifestyle is as legitimate as ours, yet its realization will remain in doubt as long as the industrialized countries refuse to make adjustments to theirs. Singer places his arguments for fairer international systems within historical and moral contexts and suggests practical solutions.

He asks appropriate, pragmatic questions under each of four major themes that define humanity's "one world": environment, economy, law and community. We all share one atmosphere where overexploitation of the environment in the industrialized countries can result in ecosystem destruction in developing countries. We are also increasingly interdependent in the trade and economic systems that may be "free" but not necessarily fair. We claim to have one workable international legal system, but it requires that all states participate to make it effective. Finally, we are all part of a human community, so we need to consider our actions accordingly. Singer challenges our assumptions while dissecting the effects of laissez-faire attitudes among policy makers and corporate leaders. In the chapter "one atmosphere" he elaborates why the US government's refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol is morally unacceptable and totally unethical. His analysis of the reasons is followed by a proposal that builds on four principles of fairness. The thrust of his critique is addressed at the power brokers in today's globalized world and less to the average citizen who is treated more or less as an observer. Still, he provides his readers with solid arguments that they can apply in their dealings with their representatives. His call for engagement in the global ethics debate culminates in the chapter "one community". Here, Singer asks us to contribute towards building a fairer world by very practical means. He analyzes why humans tend to be more caring for those close to home and in their own country. However, he argues that the concept of the `nation state' may become obsolete as global communities develop. He urges the reader to empathize with those in need wherever they are and share of what they can spare with those less fortunate than themselves.

Most of the content of the book was written in 2000 following a lecture series. Singer updated the text prior to publication in the light of 9/11 and recent trends in international trade and politics. While his questions on international trade, focusing particular on the WTO, are relevant, some of his conclusions have been superseded by current developments. His cautious optimism of a fairer trade system for developing countries in the context of the WTO was evidently premature. Similarly, his expectations that the US will in the end join the International Criminal Code and the Kyoto Protocol appear doomed. His hope for a "more democratically controlled system of regulation that promotes minimum standards for environmental protection, worker safety, union rights, and animal welfare" may remain a dream for some time. One World presents a useful overview of the different aspects of ethics and morals that an interdependent globalized is required to confront if it wants to survive and thrive in the future. Read this book for a solid overview of the ethical aspects of globalization. [Friederike Knabe]

This book follows the style that is typical of Peter Singer's other works. I found his thoughts on the United Nations to be the most thought provoking; however, as he has already dealt considerably with the obligations of the rich to the poor in his other books and articles - I think his effort would have been better spent if the entire book focused on the United Nations and organizations like the WTO and IMF and the World Bank.

He goes on to spell out some concerns with the undemocratic nature of these organizations (with the UN, it's specifically the Security Council). However, I would like more time to be spent on why the undemocratic nature of these organizations is problematic. (The US isn't completely democratic either - it's a constitutional republic with certain safeguards against the possibility of a tyranny of a majority. The permanent seat-holders within the UN security council have a veto-power that is supposed to offer similar protections against misuses of democracy. Often criticized, the US uses this veto power often to protect Israel - is this a defense of the undemocratic nature of the UN? Or is this evidence of its corruption and ineffectiveness?)

The book's focus is on two aspects of globalization: the obligation of wealthy individuals to poor ones, and the obligation of wealthy states to poor ones. His feelings of ethical responsibility are derived from his consequentialist commitments as a utilitarian. He arrives at his conclusions through his mind-numbingly logical arguments. The clincher: unlike other moral theorists, he practices what he preaches. Peter Singer donates a substantial portion of his income towards charities and overseas-aid organizations.

Even though Singer doesn't provide a completely balance view of globalization, this will be a very useful book. What I found most helpful was his clearly laid out objectives and values. Instead of fuzzy thinking, he gives his readers a firm basis for making their arguments. If you want to be able to make a good case against these organizations, this will help you to come to your own conclusions and it's a good introduction. Only drawback: it's broad focus might be frustrating for some. If that is true for you, take a good look at Stiglitz's book "Globalization and Its Discontents." This is also a well-written book.

Short and sweet:
Read this if: 1) you're trying to clarify your arguments against (or even for) globalization -- Singer lays out all the issues you'll have to grapple with eventually. 2) you're looking for a straightforward overview of the key organizations that are controlling our world today and you're concerned about undemocratic processes. Skip it if: 1) you're so sure of what you think that you're convinced there are no new angles to consider. 2) you are already pretty familiar with the IMF and company and need something more in-depth.

I've read the pro's and con's of other reviews and would like to have a brief word with those considering this book as a future purchase.

Looking at the good reviews, one I could easily give becuase I find them very agreeable, one finds the essence of the book, a global utilitarian ethical viewpoint. After browsing the negative reviews I find useful criticism gone too far. There is good substance to their points, but more often they seem to be thinking aloud rather than providing a useful review.

My suggestion: If you have heard about this book or stumbled here by accident, buy this book. While there are always points of contention in the 'nitty-gritty' the essence of his thoughts are worth more than one read, and more than simple consideration. The world is a rapidly changing place and the four chapters presented in his book offer four distinct ways to view the globalization of mankind from an utilitarian ethical perspective. I admit my idealists leanings nevertheless if one doesn't agree with Singer's arguements, then there is no better place to start making counter-arguements. The book is easy to read in common vernacular and Singer gives a good overview of the backround to each chapter focus. You will be a better citizen of whichever state after reading this one.