I. Global Suffering

It is hardly surprising in a world, which is assessed and understood in terms of “globalization”, that the principles of justice accepted at home are likewise globalized. Or not. Rather: a double standard in the judgment of national and international poverty and inequality in the distribution of resources and chances is lamented by Thomas Pogge. His approach is the subject of this article. “There is [...] a discrepancy between the minimal criteria of economic justice we apply on the global and national levels.” If one starts like Pogge from the idea, (1) that the principles of justice at home and abroad should be very similar or at least should not contradict each other, (2) that then everyone who judges a severe discrepancy between rich and poor people as unjust at home should do the same in the global case, (3) that one should act in accordance with his convictions – then one must fight against global poverty and should try to establish a system of rules which damns the distress of suffering people worldwide.

One part of such a system Pogge suggests is a Global Resources Dividend (GRD). In this article I describe (chapter II.1) this sort of an eco-tax and explain its philosophical justification that is based on the assumption that no one’s prospect should depend on conditions that are arbitrary judged from a neutral point of view (chapter II.2). The ethical and practical reservations against the dividend (chapter II.3 and III) lead to some suggestions how the GRD can be improved or replaced (chapter IV).