Two hundred and fifty years ago, the French philosopher Jean Jaques Rousseau considered the poverty and inequality he found around himself.
Contrasting the rich splendor of the French aristocracy and the desperate poverty of the wider population, he concluded that poverty and inequality were unnatural and morally indefensible.
In his Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, He wrote "It is obviously contrary to the law of nature, however it may be defined for a child to command an old man, for an imbecile to lead a wise man, and for a handful of people to gorge themselves on superfluities while the starving multitude lacks necessities."
The world we live in is far richer than 1750 France, but if anything our world is marked by more poverty and more inequality than the world of Rousseau. Although we live in a world of plenty, a huge number of people in our world live in conditions of deep poverty and food insecurity.
Like Rousseau, we live in a world in which some are able to "gorge themselves on superfluities" while others lack basic necessities.
As fortunate members of a wealthy society in a world that contains desperate want, can we justify the comforts we enjoy?
Is world hunger simply a problem, an unfortunate feature of our world, or is it our problem?
If poverty and radical inequality are unjust, as Rousseau argues they are, then are we unjust when we participate in a system that affords us such benefits?
Link
What do you think?
Contrasting the rich splendor of the French aristocracy and the desperate poverty of the wider population, he concluded that poverty and inequality were unnatural and morally indefensible.
In his Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, He wrote "It is obviously contrary to the law of nature, however it may be defined for a child to command an old man, for an imbecile to lead a wise man, and for a handful of people to gorge themselves on superfluities while the starving multitude lacks necessities."
The world we live in is far richer than 1750 France, but if anything our world is marked by more poverty and more inequality than the world of Rousseau. Although we live in a world of plenty, a huge number of people in our world live in conditions of deep poverty and food insecurity.
Like Rousseau, we live in a world in which some are able to "gorge themselves on superfluities" while others lack basic necessities.
As fortunate members of a wealthy society in a world that contains desperate want, can we justify the comforts we enjoy?
Is world hunger simply a problem, an unfortunate feature of our world, or is it our problem?
If poverty and radical inequality are unjust, as Rousseau argues they are, then are we unjust when we participate in a system that affords us such benefits?
Link
What do you think?