论文部分内容阅读
托马斯·波格的世界贫困论立场主要体现在他主张的两种消极责任上。第一种消极责任可以表述为:一些富裕国家以及这些国家的富裕公民把不公正的全球性制度秩序强加到贫穷国家特别是这些国家中的贫困人口身上,从而给他们造成了伤害,前者应致力于改革当前不公正的全球秩序,消除(减轻)世界贫困,对后者做出补偿。第二种消极责任可以表述为:一些富国和富裕公民从不公正的全球制度性秩序中获益,这是一种“从非正义中获益”的行为,对全球的贫困人口也造成了伤害,因而这些获益者应该对贫困人口承担补偿责任。这种消极责任是否成立则引发了学者们的争议。作者认为,托马斯.波格关于世界贫困论的缺陷在于他并没有说明富国和富裕公民“从非正义中获益”是由于给全球贫困人口造成伤害而违反了消极责任。米哈伊.瓦尔德曼有关“利用非正义”和“不当利用”的思想可以支持波格的观点,即在全球贫困背景下,一些富国和富裕公民“利用非正义”(不公正的全球制度性秩序)的行为确实给贫困人口造成了伤害,所以这些国家和公民对全球贫困人口违反的是一种独立的消极责任,这种消极责任与第一种消极责任不同。
Thomas Pogue’s position on world poverty is mainly reflected in the two types of negative responsibilities that he advocates. The first negative responsibility can be expressed as follows: Some rich countries and the rich citizens of these countries have inflicted harm on impoverished countries, especially the poor among them, by injustice in the global system, and the former should commit themselves To reform the current unjust global order, eliminate (alleviate) the world’s poverty and compensate the latter. The second kind of negative responsibility can be described as the fact that some rich countries and wealthy citizens benefit from an unjust global institutional order, which is a kind of “benefit from injustice” and also to the world’s poor. Therefore, these beneficiaries should assume the responsibility of compensating the poor. The establishment of such negative obligations has aroused controversy among scholars. The author believes that Thomas Pogue’s flaw with regard to the world’s poverty theory is that he does not state that the rich and wealthy citizens “benefiting from injustice ” violated negative responsibility because of causing harm to the world’s poor. Mikhail Waldman’s ideas about “exploiting injustice” and “misuse” can support Borg’s view that in the context of global poverty, some rich countries and wealthy citizens “use injustice” (Unjust global institutional order) do harm to the poor, so these countries and citizens are an independent negative responsibility for the global impoverished population. This negative responsibility is different from the first negative responsibility.