Poverty, Ecology and International Justice: Carefully explain and then critically analyse David
Miller’s argument that national membership is one morally relevant fact that determines our
obligations to the poor
Globally, different people have different backgrounds, pursue different things in life and
have different ways of identifying themselves. In any society, there is usually the need of a
person to consider whether it is morally right to prevent the occurrence of something bad without
having to derogate from moral obligations and responsibility. Poverty as a measure of a country's
ability to meet its obligation to its citizen is considered an important factor of classifying people
of different backgrounds. In many cases, poverty is caused by people who are detached from the
needs of its people, are in pursuit of their own ambitions separate from that of its state and
focusing on individual needs as opposed to the needs of the nation. This essay examines David
Miller’s arguments that national membership is one morally relevant fact that determines the
state’s obligations to the poor. It defined the concepts of national membership, morally relevant
factors, poverty and analyses Zimbabwe as one of the countries that would either require
financial assistance or humanitarian aid. It scrutinises the issues of poverty and whether there is
an obligations of other states to aid or help those living in poverty.
The definition of national membership is dependent on defining what is a nation? Smith
(1991) defines a nation as ‘a named human population sharing the same historic territory,
common myths, memories, public culture, a mass, the common legal rights, the same economy
and the same duties for all its members’ (Smith, 1991). Through defining a nation, one would be
able to define national membership as belonging to a human population that shares the same
2
territory, memories, legal rights and the same duty apply to all its members. People who belong
to a nation identify themselves as being members of a particular nation, for instance, when one
belongs to Zimbabwe one refers to themselves as Zimbabweans. National membership thus
arises when one identifies themselves with a particular nation or group of nations.
Moral responsibility refers to the blameworthiness of individuals who freely cause harm
and responsibility is associated with both the causation and the blameworthiness with groups and
this means that individuals are moral agents in their own right (Miller, 2007). The concept of
morals concerns itself with doing what is right or wrong within the moral codes of any society.
Ethically, the society has preconceived moral standards created by the society and this means
that even states composed of different members are presumed to have a particular code of
conduct that informs how they act towards other people. Moral causing agents, those
contributing to harm or social evils are the responsible people in regards to remedying the harm
they caused due to their actions.
On the other hand, poverty is defined as the lack of necessities including food, shelter,
clothing and other necessaries such security, medical care that enables a person to lead a
fulfilling life (Sen, 1999). According to Valentine (19680 he defines poverty as being caused by
inequality and what one would consider a deprivation. In very many instances, one would
consider poverty as a measure of classification political in nature, targeting the income, family,
work related expenses or creating regional differences in the cost of living. Amongst nations, the
classification of what constitutes income is done through naming countries as first world and
third world countries depending on the levels of income and development in these nations.
3
Zimbabwe presents an important case study when it comes to poverty issues and
especially regarding the reaction of ‘wealthy states’ towards alleviating the living conditions in
Zimbabwe. For instance, in Zimbabwe, the minority of the people in leadership continue to
pursue policies that are disastrous to the country’s economy (Miller, 2007). This means that
actions of minorities in leadership may lead to breach of duties of justice. In the case of
Zimbabwe one must discern whether it would be prudent for international actors to have a
remedial responsibility towards the Zimbabweans or whether there are any humanitarian duties
in regards to violation of justice.
Internationally, states are culturally divided and this means that people come from
different backgrounds, history having different opinions and perceptions about life. National
responsibility according to David Miller (2004) is ‘a collective responsibility’. H. D Lewis
writes;
‘Value belongs to the individual and the individual is the sole bearer of moral
responsibility. No one is morally guilty except in relation to any conduct which he himself
considered to be wrong… Collective responsibility is… barbarous. (Lewis 1948)
This implies that the only person that is responsible for certain wrongs or evils is the
person who is directly responsible for a situation. A person cannot be responsible for something
that they have not done. In the case of Zimbabwe, the persons who should be individually
responsible for the poverty levels in Zimbabwe are the causation agents, however one has to
consider the effect on those who are not the causative agents and are morally entitled to certain
rights in society. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights envisages certain rights such as to
4
food, education, security all measures of poverty, should other states act when there are
violations of these rights in the state.
National responsibility is discussed on the basis that it is not merely the responsibility of
the citizens of that particular state, because there is an assumption that the members of the nation
share a set of overreaching values are articulated in the public culture (Miller, 2004). Collective
responsibility does not focus on the moral blameworthiness but mainly focuses on groups of
individuals of. On the other hand, one may argue that the persons who hold moral
blameworthiness are the individuals because they are the only ones capable of moral agency and
not the entire state. The notions of globalisation have made people identify themselves with
different state, and belonging to the international communities gives rights and duties, especially
in regards to addressing a social evil or wrong.
Moral responsibility may also arise in the consequence of decisions and so forth as a
result of engaging in democratic politics (Miller, 2004). This is where the other party is a
minority. For instance where a person in authority shares national resources amongst people of
his own ethnic identity or political community, then one considers it just less that people from
other nations. This means that in a state one has to hold members responsible for results on ethics
without having to create a relationship between actions of any particular member and those
consequences. According to Toni Erskine (2010) he considers the fact that states are moral
agents holding moral rights and duties hence creating a moral agency (Miller, 2004). This means
that the collectivisation of as a percept of moral agency is formed by the identities of its people
in determining membership, the decision making structure, the conception of a state as a unit and
the executive function that is instrumental in the decision making structure (Erskine, 2010). Once
an entity meets the objects of collectivity then it needs to be considered as institutional agents.
5
According to David Miller, he argues that when people lead a poor or inadequate life due
to actions for which they are responsible for outsiders have no obligation to intervene on
perceptions of justice (Miller, 2004). In this disposition persons cannot be compelled as a matter
of justice because it is wrong. The remedial duties of other states to aid other states are informed
of their duties of justice. It is important to consider the main reason why a state is unable to meet
its responsibilities towards its citizen and reasons why there is global poverty. The reasons for
poverty in most countries arises out of unfair competition and economic cooperation in the world
economy, unnatural and unforeseeable economic disasters leading to poverty and historical
injustices exposing communities to poverty (Miller, 2007).
It is of importance to ensure that when it comes to international justice is affected by
individualism because individuals fail to attach ethical significance of identifying themselves
with communities such as a nation or a state (Miller, 2004). An individual has different needs in
society and therefore has a strong duty of justice towards other fellow citizens having a priority
and this means other weaker duties towards strangers should not be unattended. The duties
towards strangers are premised on humanity and privation as part of moral social obligations.
The different forms of responsibility relating to poverty as postulated by Miller (2007) is
firstly the responsibility an individual has for losses and gains that arise from the actions of one
person-outcome responsibility. The second notions are that an individual has the responsibility to
relieve harm and alleviate suffering if and when one is unable to do so (Miller, 2007).
The liberal views about natural justice is that collective entitles play a role in ensuring
that justice is delivered to give opportunities, resources and freedoms to those in need. This
means that membership to a state is morally arbitrary. The moral arbitrariness of the liberal
6
position is informed by the fact that liberals fail to consider whether it is good for one person to
enjoy a greater advantage over another because of belonging to one particular community. The
notions of justice according to Miller must apply equally both internationally and in the states
(Miller, 2004).
Culture is defined as a way of life of a particular people. People have different distinct
cultures with different ideologies on values and conceptions of what is just (Smith, 1991).
Cultural identity defines an individual, especially in regards to politics, religion, ethic and other
identities and hence it is difficult to have an acceptable ground to deal with moral issues. Culture
may influence the economic and social choices a community makes in order to meet their needs,
and therefore people have their own free will on how they want to lead their lives and pursue
economic benefits. Poverty should not be ignored by any nation, especially when people are
facing starvation or unable to meet their daily needs, because morals dictate that a person has to
do the right thing.
David Miller asks whether national responsibility implies that issues dealing with poverty
should not concern other people (Miller, 2007). The first reason is that the conditions for national
responsibility do not apply in such cases. For instance, third world countries are not entitled to
any claim of justice against wealthier states due to the fact that some of the members of the
members in the society played an important role in creating policies leading to poverty. In this
case, third world countries can only claim responsibility under humanitarian grounds because of
the pursuit of deleterious policies,
Secondly, one has to consider the effects of interaction and interdependence between
nation’s especially economic interactions. There is a moral obligation that one should have the
7
obligation to assist a person in extreme poverty (Miller, 2004). There is no need to condemn a
person because of having made the wrong choices in life. Miller (2004) asserts that there is no
need to condemn a person because of their practices and beliefs that led them to fall beneath the
current levels of decency. Historically, third world states such as Zimbabwe have need
disadvantaged due to historical injustices caused by colonial influences, illiteracy,
marginalisation and unavailability of resources to exploit economic responsibilities. As much as
political agents play a role in the economic policies in the state, historical injustices contribute to
the levels of poverty within the country.
In desiring to solve the issues of poverty, then amongst the most modest proposals is the
sharing of resources in a rich nation with a poor nation. For instance USA being a first world
country can share its resources such as food with a third world country such as Zimbabwe.
According to Thomas Pogge he claims that policy makers create, shape and enforce social
conditions that avoidably cause suffering of global poverty hence harming the poor, and the
participants in the largest have committed grave crimes against humanity (Pogge, 2005). It is in
one view that before any aid is given to those considered as poor, then one must consider the
moral costs and the benefits of using resources in aid of others. National disasters such as floods,
tsunamis, hurricanes may cause people to lack basic needs or lead to poverty, and states due to
these disasters have often intervened in aid of those finding themselves in the unfortunate
situation a case in point the Haiti tragedy.
In conclusion, moral responsibility may attach to help a person in particular difficulty or
poverty. Poverty does not represent a collective choice of members of a particular nation, for
instance, in Zimbabwe, it is not a fault, a different choice because those in poverty are not living
as such due to their own personal choice. In this case, states that are capable of aiding such
8
nations are to do so as a moral obligation because it is a moral right to help the nations either on
humanitarian aid or moral grounds. Despite the existence of moral obligation, there is an
argument that the person suited to remedy the wrong is the causation agent based or moral agents
who created the wrong. Morals are a relevant factor in aiding those living in extreme poverty,
because there is an inherent duty or right to help those in need even when this arises out of their
own free will or other agents leading to these situations.
REFERENCES
Erskine, T. (2001) “Assigning responsibilities to institutional moral agents: the case ofstates and
quasi-states.” Ethics & International Affairs 15(2): 67-89.
Miller, David. “National Responsibility and International Justice,” in The Ethics of Assistance:
Morality and the Distant Needy, edited by D. K. Chatterjee (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004), pp. 123-143
Miller, David, (2007). National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pogge, Thomas (2005). Severe Poverty as a Violation of Negative Duties. Ethics & International
Affairs 19 (1): 55-83
Sen, A. (1999). Development As Freedom. New York: Anchor.
Smith A. D.(1991).National Identity. London: Penguin