CFP: Globality, Unequal Development, and Ethics of Duty

Rarely since the 1960’s has the concept of global socio-economic
development gone uncontested. Initially it meant ‘modernization’,
remaking non-industrialized societies in the pattern of the wealthier
industrial societies. Yet this proved to be harmful in many cases,
provoking critical responses like that of Peter Berger, who argued in
Pyramids of Sacrifice (1974) that the discourse of development
sacrifices rather than benefits Third World societies. What is
needed, he argued, is a marriage of ethics and social change.
Similarly, by reflecting on inequality and poverty in The Cruel
Choice, Denis Goulet argued that development needs to be redefined,
demystified, and thrust into the arena of moral debate.

Subsequently the prevailing conceptions of development focused on
economic growth, yet this provoked another round of debates on the
meaning of ‘development’, which, more accurately, were debates about
what is worthwhile development – about what development ought to be.
A growing number of voices contended that if development is to be a
worthwhile objective of public policy, it could not be reduced to
economic growth; rather, a number of other values had to be
satisfied, including well-being, equity, and empowerment, human
rights, cultural liberty, environmental sustainability, and integrity
in relation to corruption. Philosophical reflection on these issues
was provided by members of the International Development Ethics
Association including Goulet, David Crocker, Nigel Dower, Des Gasper,
Jay Drydyk, Christine Koggel and Asuncion St. Clair.

Meanwhile, prominent political philosophers such as Amartya Sen,
Martha Nussbaum, Thomas Pogge, and Onora O’Neill argued that unequal
development, in its many dimensions, is incompatible with justice.
This application of an idea of justice to the context of development
demands greater complexity within our conceptions of justice,
involving not only reduction of poverty and other inequalities but
empowerment and expansion of agency for the poor.

Globalization has resulted in further complexities. Some countries
have availed opportunities of globalized production better than
others to achieve high rates of economic growth, and some of these
have significantly advanced the well-being of their people, as
indicated by such measures as the Human Development Index. On the
other hand, human development has stagnated in other countries – and
indeed entire regions. Today, it is estimated that there are
approximately 820 million people living on less than $1.25 a day. The
absolute numbers of poor people are cutting off from the prosperity
promised by global changes, critiques argue. Even where living
standards have improved, other values of worthwhile development have
not been met, and the worst of cases have been characterized by
combinations of stagnant well-being, inequality, disempowerment,
human rights lapses, cultural repression, environmental
unsustainability, and corruption.

However, the process of globalization signifies a new social
condition destined to give way to new global consciousness. By
interconnecting and networking the self- contained societies,
globalization gradually constitutes a conscious global social
condition, an ethical globality, providing conditions for a global
public reason which urges us to contemplate upon our duty to end
inequality and poverty. How is poverty in a globalized world
different from the previous era? Do we have duty to end poverty? Just
poverty, or also disempowerment? Based on what moral reasoning is
this duty grounded? Must this reasoning be based on value consensus,
or can it result in convergence on conclusions from plural moral
premises? What derives from this duty? To whom is this duty
addressed? What are the dimensions of this duty? Is this a duty to
help or a duty for justice? Is it a uniform duty or are there diverse
lines of reasoning and justifications for it? Who must undertake this
duty? How is the duty undertaken and fulfilled?

As the sixth in a series on Alternative Perspectives on Global
Concerns (www.ap-gc.org), this conference provides a forum for
conversation and dialogue about the ethics of duty in an age of
globality and extreme poverty.

Conference Themes

Conference topics include, but are not limited to the following areas:
- Ethical dimensions of worthwhile development vs. maldevelopment
- Winners and losers from globalization
- Poverty, agency, and empowerment
- Globalization of trade and the world poverty
- Financial integration and poverty
- Duty to help or to justice
- Duties of justice: beyond inequality of resources
- Justice as a virtue, in the context of international development

We invite proposals for 30-minute individual presentations. We
welcome the analysis of a broad range of issues, disciplinary and
interdisciplinary reflections and case studies. We also encourage
panel submission of three papers (each panel totaling 105 minutes).
Please include a brief description of the panel as well as individual
abstracts for each of the papers.

For individual papers, please send an abstract, maximum length of 250
words and a short bio of 150 words by end of June, 2014.

Notifications of acceptance will be made by the conference committee
by end of July, 2014.

Depending on budgetary availability, a selection of the conference
contributions will be publishing in a volume with the working title:
Globality, Unequal Development, and Duties of Justice.

Contact:

Dr. Mahmoud Masaeli
School of International Development and Global Studies
University of Ottawa
120 University Street, Room 8010
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
Canada
Phone: +1 613 562-5800 ext. 4979
Fax:   +1 613 562-5817
Email: [email protected]
Web: