Exam 50: Henry Shue

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -On Shue's view, an inequality can be unjustified either because of how it came about or because of how extreme it currently is.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -Shue believes that his three principles of fairness are commonsensical. Do you agree with him on this? Why or why not?

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -As Shue uses the term, "radical inequality" refers to conditions between parties in which:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, a guaranteed minimum should provide no more than the basic necessities of physical survival.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -For Shue, every person is entitled to equal dignity and respect.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to the third principle of equity, resources should be allocated such that:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, the main beneficiaries of the third principle of equity are:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, an unequal distribution of goods can never be equitable.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -The second principle of equity states that when several parties are engaged in a common project:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -Shue claims that wealthy industrialized countries should bear the greatest cost for protecting the environment. What is Shue's argument for this claim? Is his argument convincing? Why or why not?

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -Shue assumes that it is equitable for __________ to be distributed equally.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, what lawyers and diplomats call equity is close to what is ordinary people mean by: