In discussing about a need to introduce a plan that gives
the pharmaceutical industry the financial incentives to address the health
problems of the poorest in the world, Pogge starts off with several ideas that
relate to our previous class discussions regarding international human rights. Pogge writes that
we must reform “current national and global rules” to incentivize the
pharmaceutical industry to provide for the needs of the poorest in the world
and “reach our common and imperative goal of universal access to essential
medicines…” (3). To any reasonable and fairly compassionate person reading this,
it may be easy to agree with Pogge in the urgency of this matter. However, to
someone who does not believe that human rights are moral rules, like Beitz, and moreover does not believe that access to essential medicine is considered a human right,
there would be more explaining that Pogge would need to do. This question is especially
pressing after reading Beitz who emphasized that human rights is a practice,
and the scope of it is whatever we can agree to. Sen would define the scope to
be greater than Beitz’s, as whatever people have claim to to enhance
capabilities. Nagel on the other hand would define the scope to be smaller than
Beitz.
Although Pogge’s account of how there are millions dying
simply due to the lack of access to essential medicine is enough to convince me
that there must be something done to address this problem, there may be people
out there who may question the philosophical basis of why this systematic
reform is necessary. Some people may raise up the questions of why we shouldn’t
then as a global community do more to address famine, unclean water, lack of
education in third world countries. Who would be responsible of addressing
these problems? Where would the resources come from? The idea goes back to human
rights and the different conceptions people have about the scope of human
rights.
I think Pogge should have done a more thorough job of explaining his philosophical argument of why access to essential medicine for the poorest countries is so important by arguing that it is a human right. He does already give a compelling account through explaining the economic incentives for both rich and poor countries; however a philosophical argument would have further strengthened his account.
I think Pogge should have done a more thorough job of explaining his philosophical argument of why access to essential medicine for the poorest countries is so important by arguing that it is a human right. He does already give a compelling account through explaining the economic incentives for both rich and poor countries; however a philosophical argument would have further strengthened his account.
I like (and agree) with this criticism. I think Pogge's argument is weak insofar as he explains why citizens from developed countries should and will get behind his plan. By making a deeper claim for why access to health is a more fundamental right, Pogge could more effectively advocate for tax payer's money being diverted to international issues.
ReplyDeleteGiven that developed countries (the US included) maintain domestic problems like low life expectancy amongst certain minority groups, overall access to healthcare, etc., Pogge need make a stronger argument for why his plan ought to be a priority.
Why, if it is straightforwardly in the self-interest of the US and its citizens to support his proposal? Isn't the point that it is obviously more just that the alternatives, and more responsive to human rights claims, but ALSO that it is in the self-interest of all to support, including countries like the US and industries like Big Pharma?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHe certainly does presuppose the moral necessity of human rights, although it would be interesting to discuss where on this Beitz/Sen/Nagel spectrum his views lie. It seems as though he considers human rights to be a moral obligation, stating that intellectual property patents are "morally problematic" because they, in many ways, "impede access by the global poor to basic foodstuffs and essential medicines" (4). This leads me to believe that he sees human rights as less of a practice and more of a moral calling, especially when this is just one of many emotional appeals used to suggest the moral significance of providing access to medicines to the global poor. Perhaps his considerations are not quite as extensive as Sen's, but it seems like he would be further to that side of the spectrum than to the side of Beitz and Nagel (not that those two are so similar).
ReplyDeleteSomething I would add is that Pogge seems to be conflating two issues on obligation. He argues that there is a moral obligation to prevent poor people from dying of curable diseases, but just assumes that states have this obligation. As we talked about in class, this doesn't seem to always be the case. In Kant's system, the state only has obligations to its citizens, but not to people outside of it. Pogge's argument seems to suffer because he does not conclusively deal with the question of where the state's obligations originate. In fact, this later seems to cause problems for his argument, especially when he argues that states should subsidize research costs for private firms. If the state has no obligation to do so (in that case no moral reason), then Pogge is reduced to his practical arguments. Whether a greater emphasis on human rights solves the problem depends on whether we take states to have an inherent obligation to protect human rights.
ReplyDeleteHe does think it would be a more just world if human suffering were lessened, but is he appealing to a moral obligation that states have, or is his argument that states have sufficient reasons of self-interest to participate?
DeleteTim, I agree with your comment. It is the question of the obligations of the state and whether states recognize that they have this obligation. I imagine even if the advanced countries in the world such as the U.S. establishes that it is the obligation of the state -- what power does it have to tell the underdeveloped countries what to do? Only when states themselves recognizes that they have an obligation, they will actively pursue the programs Pogge suggests such as the "push" and "pull " programs. It is definitely costly for the states to implement these programs, as Pogge brings it up when he discusses how much a reward for the innovator should be for the "pull" program.
ReplyDelete